In re Jay J.
California Court of Appeal
66 Cal. App. 3d 631, 136 Cal. Rptr. 125 (1977)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
California law permitted juvenile-court judges to appoint adjudicatory officials called referees, who were required to have the same qualifications as judges. After hearing a matter, the referee made recommended findings of fact, which a juvenile-court judge could choose to adopt. Judges could review transcripts of hearings, but juveniles had the right to a full de novo trial before a judge only if the hearing before the referee had not been reported and transcribed. The state (plaintiff) filed a wardship petition in juvenile court alleging that Jay J. (defendant) had fired a gun inside a house. A referee heard the matter, which turned on witness testimony and credibility, and the matter was recorded and transcribed. The referee found that the allegation was true, and Jay moved the court for a full de novo hearing before a judge. The judge denied Jay’s motion, and Jay was placed under state supervision. Jay appealed, arguing that his right to procedural due process required a judge to determine witness credibility by hearing the matter firsthand in a full de novo hearing, rather than by reading the transcript.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
