## Facts

- Juvenile K.J.C. was 17 years old at the time of the alleged conduct and was also 17 at the time of the transfer hearing.
- The federal government charged K.J.C. with aiding and abetting a bank robbery, possessing LSD with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting distribution of LSD.
- The United States sought to proceed in federal court under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 and filed the required certification stating there was a substantial federal interest warranting federal jurisdiction.
- The government moved to transfer K.J.C. to adult prosecution under § 5032, which requires a court to determine whether transfer is in the “interest of justice.”
- K.J.C. lived with both parents, had a good relationship with them, and received significant family support.
- K.J.C. had just started his last year of high school and was described as having average intelligence and psychological maturity consistent with his age.
- As to the bank robbery charge, the court characterized K.J.C.’s alleged participation as minimal, consisting primarily of providing transportation to the bank.
- As to the LSD charges, K.J.C.’s involvement was more direct (selling LSD to classmates), but the record presented at the hearing included no violence and no evidence that K.J.C. owned or used weapons in connection with the drug activity.
- K.J.C.’s prior delinquency record consisted of a single incident of spray-painting graffiti on the side of a store.
- There had been no prior formal treatment efforts directed at K.J.C., and juvenile treatment services were available in the community.

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s § 5032 certification and motion properly invoked federal juvenile jurisdiction and permitted the court to consider transfer.
2. Whether, considering the six statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 5032, transferring K.J.C. to adult prosecution was in the interest of justice.

## Decision

- The court proceeded under § 5032 and held a transfer hearing to apply the statute’s “interest of justice” analysis.
- After weighing the six statutory factors, the court denied the government’s motion to transfer K.J.C. to adult status.
- The court emphasized that K.J.C.’s stable home life and strong parental support weighed against transfer.
- The court treated the charged conduct as serious, particularly the bank robbery charge, but considered K.J.C.’s alleged role in the robbery to be limited.
- The court noted that the LSD conduct, though serious, was not accompanied by violence or evidence of weapon use.
- The court found K.J.C.’s prior record to be minimal and his intellectual development and maturity to be typical for his age.
- Because there had been no prior treatment efforts and programs were available to address K.J.C.’s behavior, the court concluded juvenile adjudication and treatment remained a realistic option.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 5032, the federal government may proceed against a juvenile in federal court only after the Attorney General (or delegate) certifies one of the statutory bases for federal jurisdiction, including (as relevant here) that the charged violent felony presents a substantial federal interest warranting federal jurisdiction.
- A juvenile may be transferred for adult prosecution only if, after a transfer hearing, the court finds that transfer would be in the “interest of justice.”
- In deciding whether transfer is in the interest of justice, the court must consider and make findings on six statutory factors:
  - the juvenile’s age and social background;
  - the nature of the alleged offense;
  - the extent and nature of the juvenile’s prior delinquency record;
  - the juvenile’s present intellectual development and psychological maturity;
  - the nature of past treatment efforts and the juvenile’s response to those efforts; and
  - the availability of programs designed to treat the juvenile’s behavioral problems.
- The nature and seriousness of the alleged offense may weigh in favor of transfer, but it does not automatically control the outcome; the court must balance all six factors.
- A limited prior record, family stability, age-consistent maturity, the absence of earlier treatment attempts, and the presence of available juvenile programming can support retaining juvenile status when they indicate that juvenile treatment remains a viable option.

## Conclusion

The court held that the government did not show that the interest of justice required transferring 17-year-old K.J.C. to adult prosecution on charges arising from aiding a bank robbery and LSD distribution, and it therefore denied transfer and retained the matter in federal juvenile proceedings under § 5032.


United States v. K.J.C., 976 F. Supp. 1219 (1997)