Interpretación de Resultados

• Successful Shackling Challenge

Due to advocacy and leadership of three deputy public defenders, one judge ordered that in-custody juveniles would no longer be restrained by handcuffs, waist restraints or leg restraints in the courtroom. That court will now make in- dividual determinations in each case and there now exists a rebuttable presumption that children who are in custody for court proceedings are not a flight risk, not a threat to themselves or others, and are capable of exhibiting appro- priate and respectful behavior while in court.

• Colorado Criminal Defense Bar

The Bar has been a state leader in hosting training for juvenile defenders and has become engaged in policy develop- ment on these issues. Much of this work has been done in close partnership with the Alternate Defense Counsel and Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition.

• Center for Juvenile Justice

The Center for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) is a non-profit organization which provides free/low-cost legal defense to in- digent youth accused of crimes and status offenses. The organization employs a holistic approach to representation including collaboration with family, probation, police, courts, therapists, social workers, and agencies involved with youth. Legal services are provided by supervised law students who are serving in externships and field placements through their schools.

• The Criminal Defense Clinic at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law

The Criminal Defense Clinic at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law has recently begun taking juvenile cases under the supervision of a professor with juvenile defense experience. As of this writing, a third of the Criminal Defense Clinic’s docket is juvenile delinquency cases in and around the Denver area. Allowing students the opportu- nity to practice in juvenile court underscores the message that juvenile defense is a specialized area of practice for a new generation of lawyers, allows students who think they might be interested in juvenile defense to try out practic- ing in the area, and affords intensive, juvenile-specific training to law students who know they want to specialize in juvenile defense.

• Restorative Justice Children’s Code Provisions

Colorado’s Children’s Code includes numerous provisions supporting and encouraging the use of restorative justice practices as an alternative to formal juvenile court processing.

• Growing Up Locked Down

Colorado served as a host site for this research on youth in solitary confinement in adult jails and prisons that took place in five states. The use of solitary confinement causes anguish, provokes serious mental and physical health problems, and works against rehabilitation for teens according to a recently released Human Rights Watch report.352

• Innovative Service Delivery Systems

While not defense focused, Project IMPACT is a state leader in blending and braiding dollars most effectively to serve youth in the juvenile justice system at the local level. They have long emphasized local collaboration and local control of juvenile justice services. Their philosophy supports expansive use of community based alternatives and limited use of state institutional care in creative, comprehensive and cost-effective ways.

A strong juvenile defense system is critical to upholding constitutionally required due process protections for youth. Youth do not have uniform access to or appointment sufficiently early in the process, and the quality of representation across the state is, at best, uneven. Despite the weaknesses in the juvenile defense system, the investigators routinely noted the high level of skill and professionalism exhibited in the courts, detention centers, institutions, and a range of programs and service centers visited across the state. Coloradans care deeply about their youth and about strong communities.

To guarantee the fair and effective representation of youth through all phases of the delinquency process, the public defense system in Colorado must take serious steps to re-evaluate its commitment to the representation of youth, and then re-allo- cate resources accordingly. Juvenile defenders must become more pro-active in fulfilling their duties and ethical obligations. Judges and other system professionals must embrace the role of the juvenile defender as vital in protecting the due process rights of children. Given geographical challenges and resource considerations, juvenile defenders will have to work with others to address and solve these problems – they cannot possibly be expected to solve these problems alone.

The judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government must work together with the public defense system, juve- nile defense experts, and the community to build a modern and true juvenile defense system in Colorado. The time is now to improve this system and give it the attention it sorely lacks.

The Core Recommendations that follow represent the principal areas in which work is needed to improve both access to counsel and quality of representation for youth in the delinquency system. The Implementation Strategies derive from the Core Recommendations and provide more detailed suggestions to relevant state and local organizations and entities, includ- ing indigent defense leaders, juvenile defenders, other juvenile justice system stakeholders, and policymakers.

Core Recommendations

Colorado has an obligation to treat youth in the justice system with dignity, respect, and fairness. In order to ensure the practical realization of due process and systemic accountability, Coloradans must tackle the following areas:

1. Stop Marginalizing Juvenile Defense: Juvenile defense must be recognized as a specialized area of practice and ongo-

ing, specialized training must be made available to all attorneys handling delinquency cases.

2. Ensure Timing and Appointment of Counsel: Youth must receive early and timely access to counsel, and must have

time for a meaningful consultation with counsel, prior to waiving that or any other rights, such as those forfeited when entering into plea agreements.

3. Restrict Waiver of Counsel: There must be a concerted effort to ensure that youth do not waive counsel prematurely,

and if there is to be such a waiver, the court must make every effort to ensure that waiver is knowing and voluntary. The court must make certain that youth fully appreciate the short- and long-term direct and collateral consequences of waiving counsel and entering a plea. Courts must also strive to ensure that judicial colloquies with youth regarding their decision to waive counsel are thorough, comprehensive, and easily understood.

4. Establish a Presumption of Indigence: No child should be denied counsel because of a lack of resources. The indi-

gence determination process creates barriers that prevent youth from receiving access to counsel in a timely manner and often forces youth into conflicts of interest with parents and attorneys. All children should be presumed indigent for the purpose of the immediate appointment of counsel at or before the first hearing. It is preferred, however, that all children, by virtue of their status as children, be presumed indigent throughout the life of the entire delinquency case.

5. Eliminate Routine Use of Mechanical Restraints in the Courtroom: The routine and indiscriminate handcuffing

and shackling of all in-custody youth in the courtroom should be stopped. The use of mechanical restraints should be limited to the rare circumstance where a clear and present showing made on the record demonstrates that the child is a risk of flight or a danger to him/herself or others.

6. Reallocate Resources: Resources must be reallocated to support adequate juvenile defense practice and specialized

units with training and supervision at the county/district level. These units should have a strong local presence and