The federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA) of 1974 aims to prevent future criminal behavior by minor offenders. One young man, who was first arrested for gang crimes when he was a minor, tried to argue that he is still entitled to JDA treatment after he turned 18. The Ninth Circuit disagreed.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Judge Richard C. Tallman affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 24. He ruled that because defendant Edwin Mendez continued his criminal activity after his eighteenth birthday, he must be tried as an adult.

Mendez began engaging in activities that led to his arrest under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) when he was under the age of 18. At that time, he was charged with “participating in the operation of a Los Angeles criminal street gang called Mara Salvatrucha” (aka MS-13). A grand jury found the gang to be a RICO enterprise, which was committing acts that included drug trafficking, extortion, robbery, assault, kidnapping and murder.

Mendez’s juvenile “information,” filed in 2019, detailed his MS-13 crimes. It said that under RICO, he was involved in “29 overt acts of juvenile delinquency.” These included “two counts of first-degree murder, violent crimes in aid of racketeering, and aiding and abetting.” All of these would have been RICO crimes if he had been 18.

His lawyer argued that the JDA precluded Mendez’s prosecution as an adult and that his original charge in a JDA “information” should stand. An “information” is an indictment by a public officer, not a grand jury, although both serve the same function.

Judge Tallman began his opinion with a succinct description of the issue before the court when he wrote, “Entry into adulthood is a significant milestone. It provides a new set of privileges and consequences, many life-changing. A person’s eighteenth birthday also brings with it new legal considerations. We look at one of those in this criminal gang conspiracy case.”

Tallman then summarized the issue before the Ninth Circuit by saying, “We must decide whether the JDA precludes the government from prosecuting a person as an adult for a continuing conspiracy that includes both pre and post-majority conduct after the court dismisses a JDA information charging that person with conspiracy based solely on pre-majority conduct.”

The judge then clarified that Mendez was part of a subsequent, different RICO investigation into MS-13 activity. By this time, he was 20 and accused of one count of gang activity due to “possessing weapons, and engaging in narcotics trafficking.” The government then decided to proceed only on Mendez’s adult RICO charges and dismissed the murder charge and other counts under his juvenile information. He appealed, but the District Court denied his motion, ruling that the government is not required to continue ongoing juvenile proceedings once they begin. He appealed again.

Tallman began his ruling by determining that the Ninth Circuit had proper interlocutory appellate jurisdiction. He ruled that it did because the government’s failure to complete Mendez’s “transfer order” did not mandate dismissal of the adult charges against him. Tallman agreed with the district court’s conclusion that Mendez’s activities after his eighteenth birthday bar JDA jurisdiction because the act was “no longer one of juvenile delinquency.”

The opinion then provided background information about the JDA. Its purpose, he clarified, is “to remove juveniles from the ordinary criminal process in order to avoid the stigma of a prior criminal conviction and to encourage treatment and rehabilitation.” Several statutory definitions were then highlighted. First, a juvenile is someone under the age of 18. Second, he discussed the requirement that the accused must be “transferred” according to protocol because he committed an act of violence “which would constitute an adult felony.” This transfer was never completed.

Tallman then linked these definitions to the facts. Mendez, he explained, was first charged before his eighteenth birthday. He cited precedent that he believed stood for the determination that the JDA did not “intend(ed) to allow all persons effectively to start with a clean slate on their eighteenth birthday.” Mendez is now charged with crimes such as drug trafficking and having weapons, all of which “were intended to achieve the goals of the conspiracy.”

He then wrote that several other circuits agree with his finding that the JDA’s provisions “governing acts of juvenile delinquency” did not apply in Mendez’s case because he “continued to participate in the racketeering conspiracy on his eighteenth birthday and beyond.” In addition, the grand jury for adults that heard his case charged Mendez with different crimes than his juvenile offenses.

After turning eighteen, Mendez was no longer committing acts of juvenile delinquency under the JDA. Instead, he was participating in a RICO conspiracy and his offense is “not insulated b the JDA’s procedural enclave,” Tallman’s opinion concluded.

The Mendez case brings to mind the lyrics of a song from the Broadway musical “Seesaw” that observed, “It’s not where you start, it’s where you finish.” And Mendez clearly finished as an adult.