James Steven Corder v. Rusty Rogerson
1999 WL 796468, 192 F.3d 1165, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 24938 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause does not require an adversarial hearing with the confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses to establish probable cause in a juvenile court waiver proceeding. Relying on a probable cause determination made from written affidavits in a prior, related hearing is constitutionally permissible.
Facts:
- When he was sixteen years old, James Steven Corder's stepmother was killed and his family's residence was burned down on March 25, 1987.
- The State of Iowa alleged that Corder committed the murder and arson.
- An Iowa criminal investigator prepared an affidavit describing incriminating evidence and witness statements against Corder.
- Based on the affidavit, the State sought to have Corder, a juvenile, tried in adult court.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a Petition Alleging Delinquent Act against Corder in the Iowa juvenile court.
- The State then filed a motion asking the juvenile court to waive its jurisdiction to allow Corder to be tried as an adult.
- Following a waiver hearing, the juvenile court granted the State's motion.
- Corder was tried in adult court, where a jury convicted him of first-degree murder and second-degree arson.
- Corder appealed his conviction to the Iowa Court of Appeals, arguing the juvenile court's waiver was improper; the appellate court affirmed the conviction.
- Corder later filed for state post-conviction relief, which was denied, and that denial was also affirmed by the Iowa Court of Appeals.
- Corder filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, challenging the constitutionality of the waiver process.
- The district court denied Corder's habeas petition but granted a certificate of appealability.
- Corder (appellant) appealed the district court's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause require a juvenile court, during a hearing to waive its jurisdiction, to conduct a new evidentiary hearing with live testimony to establish probable cause, rather than relying on a prior probable cause determination made from written affidavits?
Opinions:
Majority - Loken, Circuit Judge
No. The Due Process Clause does not require a juvenile court to hold a full adversarial hearing to establish probable cause during a waiver proceeding. The court reasoned that a waiver hearing, while a 'critically important' step, is not a final adjudication of guilt and does not require the full panoply of rights afforded in a criminal trial. Citing Kent v. United States, the court noted that due process in this context requires a hearing, access to records, and a statement of reasons, but not necessarily an adversarial proceeding. The court distinguished In re Gault, which requires confrontation and cross-examination for a final 'delinquency' finding (the juvenile equivalent of a conviction), from the preliminary, non-adjudicatory nature of a probable cause determination. Analogizing to adult criminal procedure under Gerstein v. Pugh, the court affirmed that probable cause can be constitutionally determined through informal means, such as hearsay and written testimony, without violating due process.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural floor for due process in juvenile waiver hearings, confirming that they are non-adjudicatory preliminary proceedings rather than mini-trials. By aligning the standard for probable cause determinations in juvenile waiver hearings with that used in adult preliminary proceedings, the court reinforces the principle that not all constitutional trial rights apply at every stage of the justice process. The ruling provides states with flexibility in structuring their waiver procedures, allowing for more efficient, non-adversarial methods of establishing probable cause, so long as the core requirements of notice, a hearing, and a reasoned decision are met.
