## Facts

- Jerry Paul C., a Native American juvenile and member of the Acoma Pueblo, committed a series of violent offenses on the Acoma Pueblo reservation at about age 15.
- During a single criminal episode with two other youths, he abducted a man at gunpoint, robbed a store while terrorizing employees, and later shot and killed a man sleeping in a truck.
- Jerry was prosecuted in New Mexico state court as an adult and convicted of armed robbery counts (with firearm enhancement), conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and false imprisonment; he received a 120-month sentence with potential reduction for good behavior.
- The United States sought to proceed federally for conduct arising from the same episode, including the homicide, and moved under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 to transfer the matter for adult prosecution.
- The transfer hearing record described a chaotic upbringing (teen mother, limited discipline), school and behavior problems (truancy, poor grades, aggression, defiance), and gang involvement.
- Expert testimony on rehabilitation was conflicting: some characterized Jerry as antisocial and likely to reoffend; others described potential for rehabilitation through treatment and stated incarceration had increased his appreciation of the harm caused.
- The record contained limited concrete evidence of specific juvenile programs available to treat Jerry’s behavioral and substance-abuse problems within the time juvenile jurisdiction would remain.
- The court noted major sentencing differences: state sentencing could allow substantial reduction, while a federal adult guideline range would be substantially longer with limited good-time credit.

## Issues

1. Whether the government proved that transfer to adult federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 would be in the interest of justice after consideration of the statutory factors.
2. Whether sentencing disparities between state and federal systems, particularly affecting reservation-based Native American juveniles, should weigh against transfer.
3. Whether limited evidence of effective juvenile rehabilitation programming warranted denying transfer despite the seriousness of the charged conduct.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion to transfer proceedings for adult criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 5032.
- The court emphasized the multiple, escalating violent acts culminating in homicide and the resulting public-safety concerns.
- Although acknowledging troubling structural consequences of federal jurisdiction and harsher federal sentencing for reservation-based Native American defendants, the court treated those concerns as insufficient to override the statutory analysis.
- The court concluded the record did not demonstrate a realistic rehabilitative plan likely to protect the public and treat Jerry before juvenile jurisdiction would end.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 5032, a district court determines whether transfer to adult prosecution is in the interest of justice by weighing statutory factors, including: age and social background; nature of the alleged offense; prior delinquency record; intellectual development and psychological maturity; past treatment efforts and response; and availability of programs designed to treat the juvenile’s behavioral problems.
- In violent-felony cases, the nature and seriousness of the alleged offense and community-safety considerations may carry substantial weight in the transfer analysis.
- Conflicting psychological evidence does not preclude transfer where the record supports a finding of significant dangerousness and limited amenability to treatment within the juvenile system’s timeframe.
- The absence of identified, concrete rehabilitative programming capable of addressing the juvenile’s needs before the end of juvenile jurisdiction supports transfer when serious violence indicates continued risk.
- Sentencing disparity concerns may be acknowledged in the analysis but do not control the statutory “interest of justice” determination.

## Conclusion

The court ordered transfer to adult federal prosecution because the alleged conduct involved extreme violence culminating in homicide, the evidence raised substantial risk of reoffense, and the record lacked a credible, available juvenile-treatment plan that could rehabilitate Jerry and protect the public before juvenile jurisdiction would expire.


United States v. Jerry Paul C., 929 F. Supp. 1406 (D.N.M. 1996)