The award also honors Elizabeth for her amazing career in juvenile advocacy.  She was the co-founder to Washington State”s TeamChild program, which provides holistic respresentation to youth in the court system.  She has worked since its inception with the National Juvenile Defender Center and has been a part of the Equity Project, focusing on the needs of LGBT youth in the juvenile justice system.  She served on the California Team for the MacArthur Foundation’s Juvenile Indigent Defender Action Project, and is on the Boards of PJDC, TeamChild and the Center for Juvenile Law & Policy.  She also coordinates California’s Coalition for Fair Sentencing of Youth, an interfaith group that works with families impacted by youth violence, families of youth in the system, and advocates deidcated to ending extreme sentences for youth.  Additional information about  Elizabeth’s work is posted on the Human Rights Watch web site.

ABA Announces Livingston Hall Juvenile Justice Award To be Presented

 to Youth Law Center Staff Attorney Sue Burrell

The American Bar Association has announced that its 2011 Livingston Hall Juvenile Justice Award recipient is Sue Burrell, Staff Attorney at the San Francisco-based Youth Law Center.  The Award is given to someone who makes positive contributions to the field both in and outside the courtroom. The recipient must demonstrate a high degree of skill, commitment, and professionalism in representing their young clients, positively and significantly contributing to the field and the rights and interests of the children they serve.  Jay Elliott, a practicing attorney in South Carolina and chair of the awards committee said, “The Livingston Hall award is given to those unsung and selfless heroes who advocate forcefully for children and advance their interests, in court and out.  Sue Burrell personifies the reason this award was created by the American Bar Association.”

Ms. Burrell’s three decade devotion to juvenile justice advocacy had its roots in her first career as a children’s librarian.  Her legal career was launched in the mid-1970’s when she entered law school and began representing children through Loyola Law School’s juvenile law clinic.  After law school, she honed her skills as an appellate attorney for the California Office of the State Public Defender.  In 1980, she joined the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office and was assigned to represent children in delinquency cases in South Central Los Angeles.  This experience brought her face-to-face with  themes that have resonated throughout her career – the impact of racial and economic disparities on justice system involvement, the damaging impact of unnecessary incarceration, the importance of strong legal representation, and the need for juvenile advocates to be involved in policy efforts to improve services to youth and their families.  After several years of trial practice, Ms Burrell became the juvenile appellate and training lawyer for the Office, handling cases in the California appellate courts, training lawyers newly assigned to the juvenile division, and creating a compendium of juvenile delinquency law (“The Dog Book”) that is still updated and published every year. 

            In 1987, Ms. Burrell joined the Youth Law Center, and almost immediately became involved in litigation over inadequate conditions in juvenile facilities.  Significant cases that Ms. Burrell has been involved in include:   Nick O. v. Terhune (which mandated  that the California Youth Authority provide special education services to youth in its care); E.R. v, McDonnell (which resulted in improved conditions and educational services for youth at the Gilliam Youth Services Center, Denver); Wilber v. Warner (which forced the California Youth Authority to provide licensed inpatient mental health and medical care to youth needing 24 hour care); and L.H. v. Schwarzenegger (which recognized the right to counsel and due process protections for California Division of Juvenile Justice wards in parole revocation proceedings) .  At the Youth law Center, Ms. Burrell’s work also expanded to include legislative advocacy, consulting with public officials, providing individual advocacy to families and youth, and writing dozens of articles and training materials on juvenile justice issues. Over the past 24 years, these efforts have enabled her to have a significant role in shaping California juvenile justice. 

Ms. Burrell was among the first advocates to speak out against unconstitutional conditions in California’s state level juvenile facilities.  Since the late 1980’s, she has worked for a better system through legislative hearings, budget advocacy, education of juvenile justice system professionals, and litigation.  She was a member of the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Working Group, and for many years has been involved in helping to revise juvenile facility regulations for California.  She has served on advisory groups for The California Endowment’s Healthy Returns and Building healthy Communities initiatives, the Van Loben Sels/Rembe Rock juvenile advocacy roundtable, and on the boards of Loyola Law School’s Center for Juvenile Law & Policy; the First District Appellate Project, and the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

Ms. Burrell’s work also has had a national reach.  She has written and consulted for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and has advocated on important federal policy issues.  Since the early 1990’s, she has worked as a consultant for the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, training juvenile professionals from dozens of jurisdictions, developing juvenile facility standards, and writing extensively on improving facility conditions, and reducing the use of restraints.  She leads a team of California advocates in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network aimed at improving the quality of juvenile delinquency representation.  Working with the National Juvenile Defender Center, this effort has had an important impact on the standard of practice in jurisdictions around the country. 

In response learning about the Livingston Hall award, Ms. Burrell expressed excitement and gratitude.  “I have been fortunate throughout my career to have great people to learn from and to work with, plus the freedom to act in accordance with my highest values.  It is difficult to think of any more worthwhile way to spend my life than in improving likelihood of successful outcomes for young people in the juvenile justice system.”

The award will be presented August 5, 2011 at the American Bar Association meeting in Toronto, canada.   Bingham McCutchen LLP will be holding a reception in Ms. Burrell’s honor on August 24, 2011 at their San Francisco offices. 

 The Youth Law Center (YLC) is a public interest law firm whose mission is to end abuse and maltreatment of children in the nation’s foster care and justice systems, and to ensure that they are connected to families and communities. The Center advocates through public education, policy advocacy, training, technical assistance, and litigation to ensure that children in state custody live free of abuse and dangerous conditions, are treated fairly and not subjected to discrimination, and receive the support and services they need to become healthy and productive adults.

On June 16, 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court and remanding for further proceedings.  Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court (5-4) in which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan joined. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the age of a child subjected to police questions is relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda v. Arizona, 384  U. S. 436 (1966).   The Court began by noting that whether a suspect is “in custody” for Miranda purposes is an objective determination involving inquiry into (1) the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and (2) given those circumstances, whether a reasonable person would have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.  She reviewed language from other Supreme Court cases indicating that children are particularly subject to feeling pressure from adults to comply with their wishes.  The opinion concluded that so long as the child’s age was known to the officer, or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, including age in the custody analysis is consistent with the Miranda test’s objective nature.  The Court went on to state that, while this does not mean that a child’s age will be a determinative, or even a significant, factor in every case, it is a reality that courts cannot ignore.

In dissent, Justice Alito criticized the majority for making the Miranda custody determination one that must account for the individualized characteristic of age, rather than maintain the  simplicity of a “one-size- fits- all reasonable person test.”  Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia and Thomas.

The case was remanded with directions to address the question whether J. D. B. was in custody when he was interrogated, taking ac-count of all of the relevant circumstances of the interrogation, including J. D. B.’s age at the time.  The J.D.B. v. North Carolina opinion is posted on the United State Supreme Court web site.

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202496948252&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

JAN LECKLIKNER NAMED ‘DEFENDER OF THE YEAR’

San Francisco, CA — Jan Lecklikner, a longtime San Francisco public defender in the office’s juvenile unit, has been named Defender of the Year by the California Public Defenders Association.

Lecklikner will receive her award today at CPDA’s 42^nd Annual Convention and Training Program in San Jose. Each year, organizers select one public defender or private defense attorney to receive the award based on a recent accomplishment, or in Lecklikner’s case, her body of work.

“We are so proud that Jan Lecklikner was selected to receive the prestigious Defender of the Year award,” said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi today. “She has helped thousands of people over the years and is an inspiration and a mentor to our lawyers and staff.”

Lecklikner, a public defender for 32 years, has worked at the San Francisco Public Defender’s office since 1984, and in its juvenile division for approximately six years.

Lecklikner said she was honored to be recognized by other public defenders across the state.

 “It is an honor to be recognized as a ‘trench lawyer,’ one who tries that single rock of cocaine case, investigates probation violations, advocates for juveniles – all the work that never makes it to the newspapers but matters in the life of the individual client,” she said.

“Public Defenders are the backbone of the criminal justice system.  The constitution remains strong and protected because of the daily work we do, in every late night effort, in every resistance to the dehumanization of real people with hopes and dreams of their own.”

Before being hired at the San Francisco Public Defender’s office, Lecklikner worked as a public defender in Contra Costa and San Diego counties. She earned her bachelor’s degree in applied behavioral science from the University of California, Davis in 1972 and her law degree from Golden Gate University in 1978.

She is the co-founder of Women Defenders, an organization of women criminal defense attorneys and past president of Criminal Trial Lawyers Association of Northern California.