12 year old to be charged as adult in double homicide
 

NEW CASTLE - Since being charged with the murder of his father's fiance, Jordan Brown, through his defense attorneys, has asserted his innocence.

Largely because of those denials, a Lawrence County judge ruled Monday that Brown, now 12 years old, will stand trial as an adult.

Brown, formerly of New Beaver, is accused in the murder of Kenzie Houk, 26, and her unborn child on Feb. 20, 2009. Houk was engaged to be married to Brown's father, Christopher, and her unborn son would have been Jordan Brown's half brother.

At the time of the murder, Brown was 11 years old, which makes him one of the youngest people in U.S. history to be charged with homicide in adult court. For more than a year, he has been held at the Edmund Thomas Adolescent Center in Erie.

Brown's trial is scheduled to begin in May after Lawrence County Court Judge Dominick Motto denied the defense's petition to decertify the boy, which would have moved his case to the juvenile system.

"We believe that Judge Motto made the correct decision based on the law and the facts before him," said Kevin Harley, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office.

Senior Deputy Attorney General Anthony Krastek took over prosecution of the case in January after Lawrence County District Attorney Joshua Lamancusa withdrew because he had given legal advice to Christopher Brown before taking office.

Defense attorney David Acker said he was disappointed in the decision, although he couldn't have predicted which way the ruling would go.

"I'm very optimistic, but I didn't know which way he was going to roll," he said.

Under state law, homicide charges against juveniles must be filed in the adult system, and defense attorneys have the burden of proving that the prosecution must be moved to juvenile court by establishing the defendant can be rehabilitated and that he offers a low risk to the public upon his release.

Had the decertification petition been successful, the case would have moved to the juvenile system, and Brown could have been held in detention for no longer than August 2019, when he turns 21.

In his 17-page decision, Motto ruled that the defense failed to meet its burden, in large part because Brown's continued denials in the crime show an unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions, a necessary factor in rehabilitation.

Motto said that point was established by both forensic psychologists in the case - John O'Brien, who testified for the prosecution, and Kirk Heilbrun, the defense's expert - who testified in de-certification hearings Jan. 29 and March 12.

During his testimony, O'Brien said Brown's possible motive for killing Houk was that she threatened the boy's relationship with his father. Admitting the crime, O'Brien said, would have the same effect, which gives him an additional motivation to avoid taking responsibility for the murder.


Link

Wait. They are prosecuting him as an adult, purely because he is protesting his innocence? Wtf?

I felt some type of way after reading that too. I honestly thought that even IF you did it, unless you're accepting a plea, you're supposed to plead "not guilty" and maintain your innocence. Then again, I'm no legal expert. I'm sure one of the resident Lawyers will fill us in.

Isn't protesting his innocence what he's supposed to do? Also he is TWELVE! He might not have the sense/understanding to face what he has done even if he did do it!

That's insane. How the hell can they expect an 11 year old kid to have the same mental capacities as an adult, and try him as such?

The way I heard it on the news is not that he protested his innocence, but feels absolutely no remorse that his father's fiance and the coming baby are dead. He had made many negative remarks to friends that he didn't want a baby in the house.

I admit that I'm very much on the fence about this, and about other children who (presumedly) kill. There needs to be a facility for them to get treatment, away from the standard juvenile delinquent, but not with the prison general population. If he is guilty, the court may be doing the population at large a huge favor - one example being that Ted Bundy first killed someone when he was either 12 or 13. If he's innocent, he shouldn't have to be in a prison with adult felons.

Ahhh, that makes sense.

It varies on a state by state basis, but I believe that in most places he would be held in a juvenile detention center until 18 and then housed with the other adult felons.

I know that in FL children charged as adults are housed with adults and do get abused. It is disgusting. I don't care if they did "grown up" crimes. They're still babies and can't defend themselves against hardened adult criminals! No one even looks out for them there.

Max, he's a white kid.

This has been in our papers since it happened last winter. It happened about halfway between Youngstown and Pittsburgh.


Forgive me, I forgot to say thank you!

I thought he went on those rallies because Mumia was framed.

Keep in mind that this kid did allegedly kill a pregnant woman. That's a capital crime and he should count himself lucky that he won't be on death row. If this "baby" is found guilty, he brutally killed someone. Who looked out for her?

How is it a capital crime? Also does Penn have a death statute?

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. Where I live--Virginia, the only time the death penalty may be pursued is when a "capital offense" occurs. There's a very limited list--13 I believe--including killing a pregnant woman, a police officer, a young child, etc. I personally don't like it because to me it says that some lives are more valuable than others.

Pennsylvania does have the death penalty. I take back my previous statement however, that this kid won't be on death row. Pennsylvania doesn't have a minimum age for death row. I believe that once again this only happens with a capital offense, but off the top of my head I do not know what Pennsylvania defines those as.

Remember the law does not constitute execution of a minor that's why if he is found guilty, the max he can get is life.

Each state has different standards, but yeah it sounds like he is below the limit for PA.

yeah...I was referring specifically to PA...not sure if any state has a statute for executions for criminals under 18

I do apologize, I forgot that many states had not updated their laws in accordance with the 2005 ruling in Roper v. Simmons. So while Pennsylvania doesn't specifically cite an age where the death penalty may be used, they still have to abide by federal law.

I seem to remember a Supreme Court ruling fixing the minimum age for capital punishment at 18. This may have been Florida Supreme Court though.

Ah I wasn't aware of that case. Looking it up now.

I don't know the whole story, but that's what I was thinking.

Honestly, I don't think he should be tried as an adult because he does not have the mental capability of an adult. However, even at 11 kids know that a) killing is wrong and b) you apologize when you do wrong. It's been a year and he's still showing no remorse for having taken 2 lives? There's more going on here than just immaturity. Have any psych assessments been done on this kid?

Yeah there were. But the thing is, do they have iron clad proof that he actually did it? He might not be showing remorse because he didn't do it.

That is what I keep thinking. You can't really feel bad about doing something you didn't do.

That's why I was kind of WTF. They are trying him as an adult, because he is not showing remorse. But how do you show remorse and not admit guilt. It seems to me to be awfully close to punishing him because he is maintaining his innocence.

Keep in mind that not all the details of what happened are published in the newspaper. Most of the details are kept within the Commonwealth's Attorney Office. They wouldn't be prosecuting unless there was sufficient evidence against him.

Has this gone through a preliminary yet?

I thought that for a second, too. But I felt a little naive saying it. If they didn't have the evidence, why would he have been in a facility for the last year? But looking at the justice system, that sounds a little naive, too.

They found the shotgun and the shell casings all with his prints.

Prosecutors have suggested the boy was jealous of Houk and her unborn son. Police had said Jordan hid the weapon under a blanket so Houk's 7-year-old daughter wouldn't see it as he entered her mother's room. Later, authorities say, he threw the spent shell casing along a path on his way to a bus and went to school.

A state trooper testified that tests showed the shell was fired from Jordan's youth-model 20-gauge shotgun.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...98-504083.html


also see this link

Dr. Paul Friday, a clinical psychologist, says an 11-year-old with access to a gun took what he calls a simple solution to a complex problem.

"In this particular case, I am sure that Jordan saw himself in an impossible situation with no way out because that's what an 11-year-old brain would do," Friday said.

Prosecutors contend that Brown harbored resentment and felt he was treated unfairly when asked to move out of his room before the birth of his half-brother who was going to be named for his father, Christopher.

http://kdka.com/local/Jordan.brown.case.2.1600462.html

Just keep it even.

Having the older kid give up his room is just asking for trouble.

A capital offense by definition is an offense for which the death penalty (aka capital punsihment, from the Latin capitus, head, as in "off with") can be imposed. Just sayin'. ;)

Remorse for what? He's trying to get off, if he shows 'remorse' isn't that a hint at guilt? How would that help his defense?

If what I'm gathering is correct, and the real issue is that he demonstrates no sorrow that the father's fiancée and her unborn child are dead rather than feeling no remorse for killing them, then we seem to have a word-usage problem. The media uses the word "remorse," but remorse means sorrow for one's own wrongdoing. You don't feel remorse for something someone else did; you feel sorrow, sadness or the like.

Like you said, he's pleading not guilty -- a right guaranteed him by the Constitution. Why would he be expected to show remorse for something that he says he didn't do and that the government hasn't yet proven in court that he did do?

^^^^

Right, and I think the answer might be, because it's the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Right. What if he really didn't do it, but still doesn't feel sorrow for their deaths? Not saying that it's right or that it doesn't mean that he may have deeper issues, but will they punish him because he doesn't feel bad that they are dead? They have already established that he didn't like her or the idea of having a new baby sibling, maybe he just doesn't care.

;) LOL

I keep reading these police accounts of what supposedly happened here and don't understand at all how they have so many details unless there was a witness. How can you say something like "He hid the gun under a blanket so the 7 year old wouldn't see it". So either, the police are making HUGE assumptions or this kid talked some or the 7 year old saw the whole thing?

In any case, there is a reason that 11 year olds are not considered adults. I said this with Nathanial Abraham (who was 11 when tried as an adult in Michigan) and I maintain the same opinion today. If they are adults, treat them like adults. If they are children, treat them like children. If they aren't old enough to vote or drive, don't be trying them as adults. How can we constantly be moving the bar of "adulthood" based on what's convenient at the time?

Thanks. I wasn't sure of the way it works in other states, like if anyone who commits first degree murder qualifies for death row.

;) This is a Wikipedia moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment