Juvenile Case: Fare v. Michael C.
The California Supreme Court faced the case action of Michael C. in 1979. It belonged to juvenile cases, because the detainee was a minor, only sixteen and a half years old. An act of delinquency is a specific notion for juvenile crime, and court intervention is very important for making corrections of the delinquency.
Respondent Michael C. was suspected of the murder of Robert Yeager. The robbery of the victim’s house turned into his murder on January 19, 1976. A truck was identified near the Robert’s home at the time of his killing. There was a witness of that crime, who noticed it shortly before the murder of Yeager https://bestessaywriters.org/academic-referencing-help/
The teenager was not a novice in crime cases. He began as a purse snatcher, burglar of guns and later habitual offender. The probation terms have been a regular thing for Michael C. since the age of twelve. About one year before a fresh criminal case appeared, a minor had served out a term in a special corrections camp for youth. Surely, the probation was controlled by the juvenile court.
Michael C. was suspected of murder and was taken by Van Nuys police for questioning. However, the minor was aware of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. His Fifth Amendment was taken into police officers’ consideration, as well. It is vital to highlight that before interrogation, the policemen had asked the detainee about his willingness to answer the questions. Actually, it was not obligatory if he did not want to answer. Michael C. was told about the right to have attorney’s consultation. Nevertheless, the teenager agreed to answer about the criminal case. The whole speech between the boy and police officers was recording. A clear example was easily provided by the United State Supreme Court: ‘Q. Do you want to give up your right to have an attorney present here while we talk about it? A. Can I have my probation officer here?’ The detainee’s behavior was strange because he had visited police departments and courts before. He must have been informed about the role of a lawyer and probation officer. Actually, they always play different roles in giving support to detainees, especially minors. According to Genevieve Van Wyden, probation officers have many responsibilities during the work with juveniles who violate the law. They teach the youth how to avoid the breaking of laws and be good and disciplined citizens of the country. Officers implement their deep experience and knowledge in turning young people away from crime. At the same time, attorneys may be retained by defendants at any stage of their cases. Juvenile law attorneys deeply understand the juvenile procedures as well as court rules and hardly work on the defense of accused. According to the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police officer agreed to involve the probation officer Mr. Christiansen into the procedure the next day, because it was the nighttime. Later, the following can be observed: ‘Q. Okay, will you talk to us without an attorney present? A. Yeah I want to talk to you.’ After having been asked questions about the crime, Michael C. was incriminated in the murder of Yeager. Surprisingly, the minor was trying to suppress the information that he had given to the policemen. In addition, the defendant stated about the violation of his Fifth Amendment right. Consequently, that situation was studied and, finally, the motion was denied by the court. It was evident that Michael C. had waived the right to remain silent as well as the assistance of attorney. At the end, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger submitted that the request for the probation officer was not an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right. Nowadays, there are still different points of view on this case. Some tend to sustain juvenile rights and special approaches to questioning and explanation of every detail of each juridical notion. At the same time, others have no doubts in the correctness of the California Supreme Court.