State high court considers release request from ‘all youth’ in Los Angeles County custody

The state Supreme Court is prioritizing what’s described as an “extraordinary” request to release most youth detained in Los Angeles County juvenile justice centers as attorneys warn of deteriorating operations, “where access to due process and just releases are far from assured.”

A brief filed Monday said the Los Angeles County district attorney “simply does not have the capacity or luxury of time” to review individual cases and must instead embrace a collaborative effort to release as many youth as possible.

“Time is of the essence – and the need for speedy resolution is the basis for requesting mandamus from this Court, and not a trial or appellate court,” according to the brief from Patricia Soung, a senior staff attorney with the Children’s Defense Fund-California.

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office responded that the writ’s goals are worthy, but “it is unclear how the proposed orders would be workable.”

“Discretion should not be taken away from juvenile judges who are experienced in determining when minors may be a risk to the public or to themselves,” according to an informal response signed by Deputy District Attorneys Margo B. Baxter and John F.L. Pomeroy.

Justices took immediate interest in the case, ordering the response be filed by 5 p.m. Friday and Soung to reply by noon Monday.

“It’s encouraging that they’re paying attention so quickly,” Soung said after filing her 17-page brief. “It’s unclear whether they’ll want additional briefing or whether they’ll make a ruling [immediately]. Either way, their reactions seem to indicate they appreciate the urgency of the action.”

The district attorney’s office noted the short deadline in its informal response and said it’ll respond to any issue with more depth “at the request of the court.”

Soung’s writ petition, filed last Wednesday, said failing to protect children in custody from COVID-19 violates due process under the 14th Amendment and the state constitution and also violates “the very purpose of and duties of the juvenile court system.” Absence a pandemic, detaining juveniles already is to be an “exceptional practice, rather than the rule,” according to the petition. The presence of a pandemic is an “extraordinary circumstance” that warrants even broader release standards, wrote Soung, who represents the Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, and the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Independent Juvenile Defender Program, on behalf of “all youth detained in juvenile halls and camps in Los Angeles County.”

Prosecutors called their opponents’ goals “absolutely correct” but said courts already are doing all they can to safely release juveniles “and their collective action shows in the reduced numbers to date.” They also warned little will change if justices grant the writ.

“Large scale orders releasing minors, similar to the large scale releases of adults already completed, cannot be made because individual juvenile courts must still consider the well-being of each minor, and all other individual circumstances, as provided in the Welfare and Institutions Code,” according to the response.

Prosecutors also said the concerns raised in the writ “apply with equal force statewide” while seeking relief for only one county, which is “an inefficient use of the resources of this Court and would encourage parties in dozens of more cases to petition this Court for similar relief.”

Soung included a declaration from Cyn Yamashiro, directing attorney of the Independent Juvenile Defender Program, who said the courts have adhered “to the same analytical framework employed prior to the COVID-19 outbreak.” Yamashiro chronicled the court’s policy changes amid the pandemic as well as reports of unsafe practices inside juvenile detention centers, where youth still are congregating in violation of Center for Disease Control guidelines.

Attorneys working to secure their releases are facing “unprecedented ministerial and procedural difficulties ... due to drastically reduced juvenile court capacity following the declaration of the judicial emergency,” Yamashiro said.

Prosecutors included with their response a declaration from Shawn N. Randolph, head deputy district attorney of the district attorney’s Juvenile Division, that detailed prosecutorial efforts to release juveniles. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John C. Lawson II, supervising judge of juvenile court, said his bench “has been directed to evaluate and expedite them,” according to Randolph.

The petition calls for “immediate release of certain categories of youth in confinement; expedited review and presumptive release of all other youth; a presumptive prohibition on all new admissions into juvenile halls; a prohibition on transfers into all juvenile camps and county jails; and safety and health precautions consistent with protocols issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prevent and contain COVID-19 infection.”

All Youth Detained in Juvenile Halls and Camps in Los Angeles County v. Superior Court, S261701.