In Georgia, every county has a juvenile court that deals exclusively with juvenile offenders. Unlike adult courts, juvenile courts are governed by a separate juvenile code. These courts are based on the principle that juvenile offenders should be rehabilitated, rather than punished. To this end, judges make decisions based on the best interests of the child and strongly encourage parental involvement in the child’s case.

A juvenile offender is someone under 17 years old who has been charged with a delinquent act or a status offense. A delinquent act is something that would be a crime if committed by an adult, while a status offense is only a crime when committed by a juvenile (for example, being a runaway). A complaining witness – who may be a police officer, a school official, or an ordinary citizen - signs a petition describing the basis of the charges. Generally, juvenile court hearings are scheduled fairly quickly, within a month or two of the charges.

Since the goal of juvenile courts is to rehabilitate young offenders, the judge’s role during the hearing is not to determine guilt. Instead, the judge determines whether the juvenile committed the act, and what course of action should be taken to ensure he or she becomes a rehabilitated member of society. During the hearing, evidence will be presented and there may be witnesses who testify about the events in question. Juvenile offenders have the right to an attorney and should retain a lawyer to represent them. However, unlike adult trials, press and spectators are typically not allowed to view the proceedings, unless a judge allows it. Juvenile hearings are also conducted exclusively by the judge, without a jury present.

Dealing with charges as a juvenile offender can be intimidating. Contacting an experienced juvenile defense attorney is essential to ensure you and your loved ones are protected. In addition to hearings in juvenile court, similar issues can also arise during school board disciplinary hearings. To learn more about what happens in these types of hearings, please read next week’s installment of my blog. In the meantime, I welcome your questions and comments on this topic!

Many of you may have seen or even performed a field sobriety test (FST), which takes place when a police officer pulls over a suspected drunk driver and asks him or her to perform a series of roadside tests to determine sobriety. With the advent of the breathalyzer test, FSTs have fallen to the wayside in many states. However, police officers may still use FSTs in deciding whether to make an arrest and may submit testimony at trial based on actions observed during the tests.

The most commonly used FSTs include the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn, and the one-leg stand. For the horizontal gaze test, an officer asks a driver to follow an object back and forth with his or her eyes. The walk-and-turn requires a driver to walk in a straight line toe to heel, and the one-leg stand, as the name suggests, requires the driver to hold one leg in the air while balancing on one foot.

Although these tests seem simple, they have faced sharp criticism from researchers and some DUI attorneys who question the tests’ ability to accurately determine intoxication. Criticisms are based mainly on a series of studies conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In one study, police officers incorrectly identified 47% of drivers as being drunk when they were in fact completely sober. In a later study, a professor at Clemson University, Dr. Spurgeon Cole, asked police officers to identify drunk drivers based on video footage of drivers performing field tests. The officers watching the videos incorrectly identified an individual as drunk nearly half the time. As a result, Dr. Cole concluded that the tests are highly subjective and unreliable. In an interview, Dr. Cole stated that the tests are “designed to fail. There are no norms, there is no average score. We have no idea what the average person could do on the one leg with the heel to toe.” According to Cole, even if officers perform all three tests together and do so correctly, “[y]ou are only 26 percent better than chance, 74 percent as much error as you would if you just randomly guessed.”

 Moreover, others argue that a driver’s performance on the tests can be negatively impacted by many factors, including age, weight, shoe wear, and weather conditions. Some people who have underlying medical conditions, such as a condition impairing balance, may not be able to pass the tests even when sober.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this interesting and controversial subject! Please feel free to leave comments here , or questions so that I can respond.