Topeka ? The Kansas Supreme Court saying that juveniles must have jury trials for the asking will give legislators something to think and talk about.

The question is whether they do anything beyond thinking and talking when they return to the Statehouse in January. The conventional wisdom seems to be “to wait and see” how things play out.

“I think there is going to have to be some digestion of what the decision means in the real world,” said Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt. “It’s going to set up several lines of discussion, and it’s going to take some time to see which gains momentum.”

Of course not everyone agrees.

Sen. Phil Journey, who called the June 20 ruling predictable, said legislators must act sooner than later.

“There is no way we can wait. The Legislature is going to have to deal with it forthwith. It doesn’t rise to the level of calling a special session, but it’s pretty close,” said the Haysville Republican.

Not so fast, says Schmidt, an Independence Republican. “We have to take time to hear from the parties in the criminal justice system to see what this really means,” he said.

People like Juvenile Justice Authority Commissioner J. Russell Jennings, who says, “I would encourage a more wait and see approach to see how it plays out before doing a knee-jerk reaction.”

How fast legislators move depends on them. For instance, it took them two years to pass a funeral picketing bill, but when the court struck it down on March 11, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was signing a replacement on April 3.

A shift in focus

In its ruling, the court said legislators throughout the past two decades have changed the juvenile justice system to get tougher on young offenders, eroding differences between it and the adult system.

It said the juvenile justice focus has shifted to where it’s more aligned with the legislative intent for adult sentencing statutes and that sentencing guidelines for juveniles emulate those for adults.

Juveniles already have the right to ask for a jury trial but a judge could deny the request. The ruling made it a right with no refusal. There have been predictions that counties will have to add prosecutors and, in some cases, expand courtroom space to make room for juries because of increased jury trials.

That might be a bit of a stretch, said Lavel Miller-Wilson, senior attorney for the Justice Law Center in Philadelphia.

“I don’t think you are going to see a whole rash of trials. Other states that have implemented juvenile trials have not seen that outcome,” he said.

National trend

Miller-Wilson said Kansas was part of a national trend to get tough on juveniles, putting the focus more on punishment than rehabilitation. There are 10 other states where juveniles have a right to a jury trial and another 10 that allow trials under limited circumstances.

“What we have found since the mid ’90s is that states across the Union have discarded some of the protective features of the historic juvenile court,” he said. “They have discarded some of the treatment aspects and really focused more on criminalizing adolescent behavior.”

State statistics show 13,937 juvenile cases were filed for the one-year period ending June 30, 2007, but only 529 went to a trial before a judge. Most were resolved by dismissals, plea agreements or diversion programs. Only 77 juveniles were transferred to adult court to stand trial.

Such statistics has Jennings wondering how much of an increase there might be in jury trials for juveniles.

“I just don’t see a flood of demands for a jury trial by kids caught with a six-pack of beer. Now, kids out robbing and raping may want a jury,” he said.

Extra expenses

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Vratil said legislators should resist the urge to tinker with the law.

“I don’t think you are going to see the Legislature going back to the juvenile code the way it was 20 years ago,” the Leawood Republican said. “I think we have a pretty good balance right now and if that balance requires us to conduct juvenile trials, it’s fine with me. I have no problem with that.”

Vratil said defense attorneys may make more requests for juvenile trials with juries, but he sees that more as a bargaining chip to force prosecutors into plea agreements.

He said the ruling may cost some money.

“We may have to add new judges more rapidly than planned but I don’t expect that will be a major expense,” Vratil said. “The counties may have to do some remodeling for the courtrooms and that is a county expense.”

If it costs counties more money, then county officials will be asking legislators to help pay the bill, said Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dwayne Umbarger.

“That will trip the trigger. They will come to the Legislature and say, ‘Talk about unfunded mandates. We need help and we need it now’,” the Thayer Republican said.

He said the tougher approach was supported by the voters.