ipl-logo

Case Brief Of Kent V. US

839 Words4 Pages

Kent v. United States
383 US 541 (1966)

PROCEDURAL FACTS

The defendant, Morris Kent Jr., was arrested by authorities under the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia under charges of housebreaking, robbery, and rape. The defendant was subject to exclusive jurisdiction under the Juvenile Court as he was 16 at the time. Juvenile court jurisdiction was waived and Kent was sent to trial under the regular procedure of the District Court. The defendant was convicted under the District Court of the District of Columbia on six counts of robbery and housebreaking but was acquitted of the rape charges by plea of insanity. Kent was convicted and sentences to 30-90 years in prison. The defendant appealed his conviction to the United States …show more content…

was arrested and interrogated by police under circumstances pertaining to robbery, housebreaking, and rape. During his interrogation, in which he lacked an appropriate legal counsel, he admitted his involvement and the Juvenile Court ordered a waiver for the defendant to be prosecuted under the District Court of the District of Columbia as an adult. Kent moved to dismiss the waiver as he claimed a “full investigation” had not been conducted as required, but the District Court dismissed his claim. Kent was convicted on six counts of robbery and housebreaking, but was acquitted of two counts of rape with justification of insanity. Kent appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the District Court and maintained that the waiver was valid. The case then reached the Supreme Court as he felt his rights protected by Fifth Amendment of the United States were …show more content…

The Supreme Court utilized the Fifth Amendment of the United States as reference since it lacked the adequate regard for due process as protected under the law. The Fifth Amendment of the United States specifically voices that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. The defendant, Kent, stated that the procedures leading up to the District Court trail were unjust as he lacked a proper hearing, assistance of counsel, and proceeded without a statement of reason regarding the waiver. Because of the lack of these important steps, the Court believed the defendant was being deprived of his rights without the due process of law. These key aspects would not go unnoticed in the case of an

More about Case Brief Of Kent V. US

Open Document