## Facts

- Bland, age 16, was arrested and federally indicted for armed robbery of a post office and related offenses in the District of Columbia.
- District of Columbia law defined “child” as generally under 18 but excluded persons age 16 or older charged by the United States with specified serious offenses, including armed robbery.
- Because of the charge and Bland’s age, the prosecution proceeded in adult criminal court rather than juvenile court.
- Bland moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statutory exclusion violated procedural due process and effectively impaired the presumption of innocence by making adult/juvenile status depend on the prosecutor’s charging decision without an individualized hearing.
- The district court dismissed the indictment, holding the statutory exclusion unconstitutional.
- The United States appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory exclusion of certain 16- and 17-year-olds charged with specified serious offenses from the definition of “child” violates due process or equal protection as an arbitrary legislative classification.
2. Whether allowing the prosecutor’s charging decision to determine adult versus juvenile treatment violates due process or negates the presumption of innocence.
3. Whether due process requires an individualized judicial transfer hearing when the legislature has categorically excluded an age-and-offense class from juvenile jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court and reinstated the indictment.
- The court held the statutory exclusion constitutional under deferential review of legislative classifications.
- The court rejected the argument that the scheme negated the presumption of innocence, treating the classification as jurisdictional rather than a determination of guilt.
- The court held that reliance on prosecutorial charging discretion, without more, does not violate due process.
- The court concluded that no transfer hearing is constitutionally required where the legislature has defined juvenile jurisdiction to exclude a specified class.

## Legal Principles

- Legislatures may define juvenile status and allocate juvenile versus adult court jurisdiction through categorical age-and-offense classifications, subject to rational-basis review.
- A legislative classification affecting juvenile court eligibility is upheld if there is any rational basis for the distinction.
- The presumption of innocence concerns adjudication of guilt at trial and is not necessarily infringed by pretrial jurisdictional classifications triggered by the charged offense.
- Prosecutorial charging discretion is generally not judicially reviewable absent a showing of invidious discrimination or use of impermissible criteria.
- Due process does not require an individualized transfer hearing when a legislature has removed a defined category of offenders from juvenile jurisdiction by statute.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a statutory scheme under which certain 16- and 17-year-olds charged with enumerated serious offenses are excluded from juvenile status and may be prosecuted as adults, concluding the classification had a rational basis, did not impair the presumption of innocence, and did not require a transfer hearing despite the prosecutor’s gatekeeping role through charging decisions.


United States v. Bland, 472 F.2d 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1972)