Transfer hearing offers glimpse at changes brought by Proposition 57
A now-18-year-old man sat in a Sutter County courtroom Thursday to await a judge’s decision on his future: to be tried in adult court, or to continue in juvenile court.
He is charged with attempted murder and second-degree robbery in connection to the Dec. 9, 2016, shooting on Dorman Avenue, when he allegedly shot a 19-yearold multiple times in the abdomen after demanding his wallet, according to Appealdemocrat archives.
The judge ruled that his case stay under juvenile court jurisdiction (so his name is not being published).
As Deputy District Attorney Adam Mcbride argued that the man should be transferred to adult court, he acknowledged changes Proposition 57 has brought in such transfer hearing proceedings.
The new standard, according to a California Courts document on the issue, focuses on the person, not the alleged facts of the case and a shift in perspective: from probation – the seriousness of the offense alone isn’t enough; from the District Attorney in terms of filing considerations; from the judge – it’s not just a question of “is it possible” that the person can be rehabilitated and shifts to whether the person is amenable to rehabilitation based on five criteria; and from defense – the prosecutor bears the burden of preponderance of evidence, but defense counsel must help the court understand the amenability. So what does that all mean? It means that though Mcbride outlined the seriousness of the offense – saying it was an unprovoked attack in which the then 16-year-old pursued the victim “much like a hunter pursues his prey” – that alone isn’t enough. The court must determine whether the defendant can be cooperative to rehabilitation based on all five criteria.
Those five criteria include: the degree of criminal sophistication; whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction (which runs out at age 25); previous delinquent history; success of previous rehabilitation attempts; and the circumstances and gravity of the alleged offense.
At the end of testimony Wednesday and closing arguments Thursday, Judge Brian Aronson ruled the man would stay in the custody Rachel Rosenbaum of the juvenile court for more attempts to be rehabilitated. He called into question previous rehabilitation attempts (of which he said prosecution and probation didn’t provide all or full evidence of such); the possibility of traumas in the man’s childhood; and the level of sophistication in the offense.
“To me, the most important thing is whether I believe the minor can benefit from services the Department of Juvenile Justice can offer,” Aronson said. “The doctor says he can be … I don’t think the people have met their burden.”
Reporter’s Note: behind bushes. The woman was able to fight free and flag down a passing motorist for help.
Blood on the woman’s shirt was submitted to the state Department of Justice and in December, it came back with a match to Keller, according to court documents. The victim, who suffered minor injuries in the struggle, believed Keller intended to sexually assault her, court documents state.
In an email Friday, District Attorney Pat Mcgrath clarified that Keller will not be required to register as a sex offender.
The deputy district attorney handling the case, Melanie Bendorf, said Keller may have actually intended to rob the jogger, calling his actual intent into question, Mcgrath said.