Kent v. United States
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
116 later cases cite Kent v. United States; 116 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Kent v. United States?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The New York Court of Appeals declined to carry Kent's access-to-records ruling from a juvenile waiver hearing to a convicted person's presentencing report.
People v. Peace · New York Court of Appeals · filed
There is language in the Kent opinion which commends itself to the view that such reports and recommendations should be made available for inspection by counsel. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s recent promulgation of rule 32 (subd. [c], par. [2]) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as well as the distinctions which exist between a waiver hearing for a juvenile pretrial and a presentencing report for a convicted criminal posttrial preclude placing reliance on the Kent case as controlling here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Seventh Circuit held that an Illinois transfer procedure giving the prosecutor the initial decision did not require the juvenile judge to give Kent-style reasons.
United States ex rel. Bombacino v. Bensinger · Seventh Circuit · filed
We find nothing in either the Kent opinion or in the concept of fundamental fairness which mandates such a hearing before the jurisdiction of the juvenile court may be waived. ... We are also satisfied that there is no inflexible requirement that a statement of reasons always be given by a juvenile judge before allowing a transfer to occur.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of North Dakota held Kent's hearing requirement unavailable for a juvenile waiver made in 1965.
State v. Lueder · Supreme Court of North Dakota · filed
It points out that the requirement of a hearing upon a waiver of juvenile jurisdiction was first imposed in the case of Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84, in 1966, and that the rule in Kent is generally held not to be retroactive, citing ... We agree with the majority rule, and therefore hold that the waiver of juvenile jurisdiction in this case, which occurred in 1965, without a hearing, violated no constitutional provision then in effect.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico declined to extend Kent's due process safeguards to require proof above a preponderance standard at a juvenile transfer hearing.
Pueblo en interés del R.H.M. · Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · filed
El caso Kent v. United States, supra, pág. 562, no requiere un criterio de prueba más riguroso. ... Por estas razones, resolvemos que el debido proceso de ley y el trato justo no requieren que se le imponga al Estado un criterio de prueba más riguroso para la determinación judicial de renuncia de jurisdicción.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Kent v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace