How Defense Attorneys Consult with Juvenile Clients about Plea Bargains

Juveniles do not have the same mental capabilities as adults and require parental consent to make important decisions. However, in a plea-bargaining setting, they are held to an adult standard of competence and required to make their own decisions. Defense attorneys for juveniles consequently struggle to form the most appropriate strategy for addressing their clients’ developmental capacities or enhancing their understanding. Attorneys often employ an “expressed interest approach” whereby they place their clients’ final decision and best interests above their own, subject to varying degrees of influence. This study asked twenty-three attorneys from a single juvenile public defense office in a large urban jurisdiction to participate in a one-hour semi-structured interview on how they prepare their clients to make voluntary, intelligent, and knowing plea decisions. Attorneys reported having discussed with their clients between one and twenty-one separate topics, including charges faced, likely disposition and sentence, evidence to be presented, and collateral consequences. The clients most often prioritized decisions that would let them go home and not be incarcerated. Attorneys then used one of three response strategies: developmentally-informed structured reflection, acceptance of client’s decision, or explicit disagreement and acceptance of client’s decision. The strategies varied by how client-centered and influential the attorneys were. Overall, the attorneys expressed concern that more resources and time to evaluate competence or explain information are necessary to facilitate juveniles’ decision-making.

“Attorneys who represent youth in plea bargaining proceedings face a complicated task—interacting with their clients in a developmentally responsive manner that enables informed decision making about constitutional rights. . . . [I]t is during these discussions that defendants are informed of the rights they are being asked to waive, the consequences of waiving those rights, and the potential terms of the plea being offered.” p. 194