In 2005, J.D.B, a thirteen-year-old special education student, confessed to a rash of break-ins in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, while he was interviewed by police and school officials in a closed room at his school. J.D.B.’s lawyer challenged the use of his confessions. The North Carolina Supreme Court refused to throw the confessions out, saying the youth was never actually in custody since he had not been formally restrained and the door to the room was not guarded. It also said courts cannot look at age when examining whether the boy thought he could leave.

In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), which requires that, prior to questioning, a suspect be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. In an Opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor in which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined, the Court stated, “It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality, [the Court held] that a child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis.”

The Opinion, which was delivered on June 16, 2011, may be found at:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-11121.pdf

The information provided on this newsletter is ADVERTISING MATERIAL and is for general information purposes only. The information provided is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and PATEL & WILLIAMS, PLLC. No attorney-client relationship is formed unless specifically agreed to in writing. The information found in this newsletter has been prepared for information purposes only. None of the information contained herein should be construed as legal advice nor does the information imply any guarantee as to the results of future litigation. You should not act or rely upon this information without seeking formal professional counsel who is aware of the specific facts involved in your case. The information provided in this newsletter should not be considered to be an invitation to an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, you should consult with an attorney familiar with your circumstances and seek the advice of counsel in the appropriate jurisdiction.