The teenager, who was arrested on a subway bus about an hour after the shooting in a North Seattle school hallway, was one of two ordered to remain in custody by Juvenile Judge Averil Rothrock. The other, a 15-year-old boy, is suspected of providing criminal assistance to the suspected shooter and illegally possessing a weapon.
The 14-year-old boy waived his first appearance at the Judge Patricia H. Clark Children and Family Justice Center, where Rothrock found probable cause for two additional charges: second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of a dangerous weapon at school. property.
The boy’s parents appeared by phone but did not address the court. A person representing the slain student’s family listened to the hearing by phone, according to Senior Deputy District Attorney Brent Kling, who told Rothrock that the victim’s mother was hospitalized after the shooting.
The King County Medical Examiner’s Office has not yet publicly identified the student who was killed. The Seattle Times does not typically name juvenile respondents unless they are charged as adults.
Police responded to reports of a shooting at North Seattle High School around 10 a.m. Tuesday and arrested the two teenage boys about an hour later.
Kling told Rothrock a .357 caliber handgun was found in the 15-year-old’s backpack. The gun’s magazine was empty, but there was a round in the slide that appeared to match the caliber of the casings police recovered at the scene of the shooting, Kling said.
Although the 15-year-old’s involvement is still under investigation, witnesses reported seeing him with the 14-year-old before the shooting, Kling said. Prosecutors expect to file charges against both boys on Monday.
Defense attorney Mark Bradley argued for the 15-year-old’s release, telling the judge the boy has no criminal record and would be closely supervised by his parents. The boy’s parents said the family recently moved to Seattle from Auburn.
“He’s never had a problem. He’s a good kid,” the boy’s mother told the court.
“We just moved here. … He doesn’t look like him at all,” his father added.
Rothrock explained that her decision to keep the boy in custody may be reviewed at his second court appearance next week.
“I’m going to let things settle down a bit … and maintain the status quo for today,” he said.
Prosecutors are expected to consider whether they plan to request a discretionary dismissal hearing involving the 14-year-old shooting suspect after a charging decision is made in his case.
Under state law, cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds charged with serious violent crimes — including first- and second-degree murder and first-degree rape, assault and homicide — can be “automatically dismissed,” meaning the juvenile court automatically declines jurisdiction and the criminal case is filed in adult or superior court.
Dismissal hearings are limited to cases involving 15-year-olds charged with a serious violent crime or cases involving persons 14 and older charged with first- or second-degree murder. If a case remains in juvenile court instead of being transferred to adult court, the juvenile court loses jurisdiction when the defendant turns 21.
Although it is quite rare in King County, it can take about a year for a discretionary dismissal hearing to be held. A juvenile judge is required to weigh eight factors — known as the “Kent factors” for a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision — that take into account things like the seriousness of the offense and the sophistication and maturity of the young person before deciding whether jurisdiction has diminishing position. the interest of youth or the public.
The “Kent Factors”
Kent’s eight factors that a judge must weigh in determining whether a case remains in juvenile court or is transferred to adult court: • The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires a waiver. • Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or deliberate manner. • If the alleged offense involved persons or property, with more serious offenses against persons, especially if injury is caused. • The prosecutorial merits of the complaint, that is, whether there is evidence on which a grand jury can be expected to return an indictment. • Willingness to try and dispose of the entire offense in a court of law when the minor’s accomplices in the alleged offense are adults. • The sophistication and maturity of the minor, as determined by consideration of the minor’s home, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and lifestyle. • The juvenile’s record and prior history, including prior contacts with law enforcement, juvenile courts, probation, and commitment to juvenile institutions. • The prospects for adequate protection of the public and possibility of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if found to have committed the alleged offense) using the procedures, services and facilities available to the Juvenile Court. Source: Kent v. United States Judges’ findings to decline juvenile jurisdiction must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, although not all eight Kent factors are required to support a departure. If a case is transferred from juvenile court to adult court and the defendant is convicted, judges have the discretion to impose a sentence outside the standard range for adult defendants. While 16- and 17-year-olds convicted of first-degree murder must serve the mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison before they can apply to the state for parole, a judge has discretion to sentence younger juveniles to less than 20 years.
