Attorney James Sullivan is Board Certified in Juvenile Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization since 2004. He is a recognized expert in the highly specialized area of juvenile
law.
Juvenile Law is different than criminal law. Many criminal defense lawyers advertise that they are also juvenile
defense lawyers, yet they may never have tried a juvenile case to a
jury. In order to hold oneself out as a true expert in Juvenile Law, a
lawyer has to be Board Certified in juvenile law. To become Board Certified, an attorney must
- have been licensed to practice law for at least five years,
- devoted a required percentage of practice to a specialty area for at least three years,
- handled a wide variety of matters in the area to demonstrate experience and involvement (including at least 3 jury trials, 5 non-jury trials and 3 certification hearings),
- attended continuing education seminars regularly to keep legal training up to date,
- been evaluated by fellow lawyers and judges, and
- passed a 6-hour written examination.
The
parents of children caught up in the juvenile justice system are very
concerned about how their child’s misdemeanor or felony delinquency case
could impact their future. This is a very valid concern. Colleges and
universities have access to juvenile records. Clearly, a juvenile
delinquent is less likely to receive a highly coveted admission to a top
school. Also, law enforcement has access to juvenile records. When
juveniles are stopped by the police, they may be treated differently
when the police know that they have a record. There are several other
ways that a juvenile record could impact your child.
If your child needs a juvenile defense lawyer, you can call Attorney James Sullivan right now at 281-546-6428.
A recent case in Illinois illustrates
the importance of attorneys providing strong legal defenses to their
juvenile clients. Many juvenile lawyers have the mistaken belief that
they should be seeking what is in the child’s best interest first.
Instead, they should be providing a zealous defense. If the child is
later found to be delinquent, then it is at the disposition (punishment)
stage that their client’s best interest are considered. A lawyer’s
first duty is to fight for their client.
This article entitled “Court: Even juveniles deserve strong defense” by Christopher Wills appeared in the Houston Chronicle on August 30, 2012.
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Lawyers
are supposed to win cases for their clients. Lawyers in the juvenile
justice system want what’s best for troubled children.
And when the two impulses are in conflict, the attorney should focus on presenting the best possible defense, a deeply divided Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The court ordered a new trial for a
teenager known as Austin M., who was found guilty — or “adjudicated
delinquent” in legal terminology — of sexually abusing two foster
children living in his home in 2005.
The justices ruled that Austin was
denied a proper trial in 2007 because his lawyer mixed his duty as a
defense attorney with concerns about what the parents wanted and what
would be best for the teen in the long run.
Juveniles, like adults in criminal
cases, deserve “an attorney whose singular loyalty is to the defense of
the juvenile,” Justice Anne Burke wrote for the majority.
Children’s advocates applauded the
ruling. It promises to improve the legal counsel minors receive, they
said, and reduce confusion created by the current system where lawyers
often wear two hats.
“I anticipate this decision will be
read widely around the country,” said Bruce Boyer, director of Loyola
University’s Civitas ChildLaw Center in Chicago. Many states balk at the
cost of appointing both a defense attorney to fight the charges and a
guardian to consider the child’s best interests, he said.
In Austin’s case, attorney Anthony
Novak said at the trial that he and Austin’s parents wanted to establish
the truth of the situation and get the defendants treatment if
necessary. He acknowledged that he wasn’t handling the case the same way
he would if an adult were accused of the crime.
Novak did not cross-examine the
foster children who accused Austin and co-defendant and brother Ricky in
confusing and sometimes contradictory statements. He also didn’t
challenge testimony about a one-sentence confession Austin supposedly
made to police.
Because of that confession, which
Austin and his father later denied he made, Austin was found guilty and
sentenced to probation, while his brother was acquitted.
Novak was not formally appointed
guardian ad litem, the person responsible for protecting a minor’s
interests in court, but the Supreme Court found he essentially took on
that role instead of aggressively fighting the charges.
“The minor is entitled to an
attorney who is dedicated to providing the minor with a zealous defense,
an attorney who will hold the prosecution to its burden of proof. The
time for ‘best interests’ considerations is at the disposition phase,”
said Burke, who was joined by three other justices Thursday.
Two others agreed Austin’s
conviction should be overturned but objected to a new trial, arguing
there wasn’t enough evidence to support the charges.
The seventh member of the court,
Justice Robert Thomas, disagreed entirely. He said the majority decision
“is completely unfounded and finds no support in the record.” He
scolded the majority for demeaning “a fine performance” by Austin’s
defense attorney.
Novak was on vacation and couldn’t be contacted immediately, his office said.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa
Madigan’s office, which fought Austin’s appeal, would not comment. The
Ford County state’s attorney did not immediately return a call asking
whether Austin would be retried.
Jacqueline Bullard, an assistant
state appellate defender who handled the case, said Austin served his
sentence of two years’ probation and 50 hours of community service, but
would not disclose anything else about him or his life.
But she said Austin would have a
strong incentive to fight the charges if tried again. Unless the charges
are dropped, Austin must register as a sex offender.
“Getting this black mark off his name is certainly important,” Bullard said.
