State v C.T.P.-B
Appeal: 24AP189
Filing attorney: Michael Cohen, Alicia Linzmeier
Judge: Chippewa County Circuit Judge Steven Gibbs
"In brief" posts are shorter looks at interesting appellate filings. There are simply too many worthy cases to cover in full and these posts let me cover a few more. They lift a lot from the briefs themselves (expressing gratitude to lawyers who are decent writers). Those lifted parts are indented. My additions / summaries are not. My explanatory inserts are in italics.
Please remember — these are generally taken from briefs and present the arguments of the parties appealing. They do not necessarily present the full story. I'll try to post excerpts from the responses as they are filed. That can be months after filing of the the appellate brief.
For those interested, the brief in this case includes a long riff on utilitarianism and quotes philosopher Immanuel Kant, Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. I've skipped those parts below.
The state Court of Appeals should reverse a lower court judge who rejected, despite expert testimony, a request to grant a reverse waiver into juvenile court for a boy who killed and sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl, according to an appellate brief argues.
Chippewa County Circuit Judge Steven Gibbs "erred in finding that transferring jurisdiction would depreciate the seriousness of the offense," according to the brief filed in the District III Court of Appeals. "The uncontroverted evidence presented by (defendant) C.T.P.-B. clearly establishes that reverse waiver would not depreciate the seriousness of the offense."
C.T.P.-B admitted killing the 10-year-old girl in April, 2022, when he was 14.
Victim was deceased and had injuries described by investigators as consistent with blunt force trauma to her head. She was naked from the waist down. A forensic autopsy concluded that there were injuries and biological evidence consistent with sexual assault. C.T.P.-B.’s DNA was found on swabs taken from the victim’s mouth, anus, and left buttock. The forensic autopsy also found manual strangulation, blunt force trauma, and sharp force injury.
When questioned, C.T.P.-B said he met the victim on a trail and asked her if she wanted to go exploring off trail. After they walked into the woods, C.T.P.-B punched her in the stomach, knocking her down, and hit her in the head with a stick three times. Then he strangled her until she was dead. He tried to have sex with her, but got scared and stopped.
He went home.
C.T.P.-B. was charged with first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree sexual assault, and first-degree child sexual assault. In Wisconsin cases against juveniles charged with first-degree homicide begin in adult court, but the juvenile can seek a reverse waiver to juvenile court.
C.T.P.-B. was evaluated by Dr. Steven Benson and Dr. Michael Caldwell. Both doctors diagnosed C.T.P.-B. with multiple, verified psychological disorders.
Benson and Caldwell both testified at a reverse waiver hearing that C.T.P.-B. has autism spectrum disorder; Benson also diagnosed "persistent depressive disorder. He testified that C.T.P.-B.’s treatment needs cannot be met in the adult system."
Caldwell diagnosed C.T.P.-B with "unspecified anxiety disorder and testified that his clinical needs supported transfer to juvenile court," according to the brief filed on C.T.P.-B's behalf by attorney's Michael Cohen and Alicia Linzmeier.
Another doctor, James Garbarino, testified that, "based on C.T.P.-B.’s history, characteristics, and psychological diagnoses, reverse waiver would not depreciate the seriousness of the offense," the brief said.
Garbarino also said that
C.T.P.-B.’s offense is characteristic of an adolescent crisis and that supervision until age 25 (under the juvenile system) would be sufficient to address and overcome the adolescent crisis and would not depreciate the seriousness of the offense.
C.T.P.-B. presented five witnesses at the hearing; the state presented none.
After written briefs were filed, Gibbs rejected C.T.P.-B.’s request for a reverse waiver, but agreed to to allow an appeal while the case was pending.
Under state law, juvenile defendants seeking a reverse waiver must prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" three things, Cohen and Linzmeier wrote.
They are that:
if convicted, the juvenile could not receive adequate treatment in the criminal justice system;
transferring jurisdiction from adult to juvenile would not depreciate the seriousness of the offense; and
retaining jurisdiction in adult court is not necessary to deter the juvenile or other juveniles from committing the crimes of which they are accused.
Gibbs found that C.T.P.-B. met his burden on the first and third factor, but not the second, the brief said.
"The Circuit Court’s duty is to determine not whether the specific facts of the offense are serious, but instead whether transferring the case to juvenile court would depreciate the seriousness of the offense," the lawyers wrote.
Juveniles are not miniature adults. Settled science indicates that the brain does not fully develop until, on average, age 25. Brain development does not occur uniformly in all parts of the brain; the parts of the brain that control higher cognitive functions such as judgment, planning, and impulse control are the last to develop. ...
Because the brain is not fully developed, adolescents “rely on the emotional part of the brain when making decisions.”
State cases that address the juvenile-culpability issue do not address the reverse waiver because it was not raised, Cohen and Linzmeier wrote.
In this case, everyone agrees that C.T.P.-B. should be punished. The question is both how and how much should we punish him. By placing C.T.P.-B. in juvenile court, he will receive the punishment he deserves, while also receiving the help he needs. This outcome will not depreciate the seriousness of the offense.
The research discussed above assumes juveniles without cognitive issues that impact normal functioning. C.T.P.-B., by virtue of his ASD, is not similarly situated. If juveniles under the age of 16, without ASD, are doubly disadvantaged compared to adults, then C.T.P.-B. is triply disadvantaged as a result of his ASD. It is undisputed that, if C.T.P.-B.’s petition for reverse waiver is granted, he would be subject to the juvenile corrections system until age 25 in the SJO (serious juvenile offender program). ...
In making its ruling on the second factor, the Circuit Court made minor, conclusory findings of fact, but completely failed to apply those facts to the law. The Circuit Court found that the offenses alleged in this case were serious; however, that is not the analysis demanded by the reverse waiver statute. Nowhere in the Circuit Court’s decision is an explanation of how or why reverse waiver would depreciate the seriousness of the offense. There is only a statement that the court “is not swayed by the defense arguments.” There is no explanation of why the SJO program is insufficient in this case, even in light of C.T.P.-B.’s argument that the intensive treatment available in the SJO program would embrace, rather than depreciate, the seriousness of the offense."
Comments