NCJ Number
104328
Journal
Villanova Law Review Volume: 30 Issue: 5 Dated: (1985) Pages: 1235-1266
Date Published
1985
Length
32 pages
Annotation
This comment assesses the various methods for evaluating the validity of juvenile confessions, reviews the development of Pennsylvania case law in this area, and proposes a resolution to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's apparent inability to define a stable standard for evaluating juveniles' waivers of rights.
Abstract
In its rulings on the appropriate standard for determining the validity of a juvenile's waiver of the right against self-incrimination, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court moved from the traditional totality-of-the-circumstances test to a per se rule, which excludes juvenile confessions obtained without prior consultation with an interested and informed adult. Over the last few years, the court developed exceptions to the per se rule and then recently abandoned the rule in reverting to the former totality-of-the-circumstances standard. Although commentators view the per se rule as the enlightened model of respect for juveniles' vulnerability under interrogation, based upon empirical studies, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court apparently believes that courts can competently evaluate whether a juvenile's waiver of self-incrimination rights is voluntary by examining all the attendant circumstances. The court's changing approach to the admissibility of juvenile confessions has failed to produce a clear standard for evaluating the validity of a juvenile's waiver. To ensure a stable standard that is sensitive to juveniles' vulnerability under interrogation, Pennsylvania should pass a law that prohibits a juvenile's waiving self-incrimination rights without the advice of an interested and informed adult. 176 footnotes.