MADISON, Wis. (CN) - The Wisconsin Supreme Court considered Tuesday whether the reverse waiver statute deprives children who commit serious crimes of due process and whether a 10-year-old who killed his mother belongs in the criminal system.

"Part of the problem here is the doctors were not able to provide a consistent diagnosis because some of this could be a 10-year-old being imaginative with a loose connection to reality," Justice Susan Crawford said. "This is a child who still referred to his mother in the present tense, who couldn't grasp the finality of his actions."

Noah Mann-Tate, who was 10 years old at the time, shot his mother in the face while she was doing laundry after she refused to buy him an Oculus virtual reality headset on Amazon in November 2022.

He first told police he was twirling his mother's gun on his finger when it suddenly went off but later confessed he took a shooter's stance and killed her on purpose.

He was charged with first-degree intentional homicide in January 2023, which falls under criminal court jurisdiction.

The circuit court denied his motion to be transferred to juvenile court because he failed to meet the criteria, but the appeals court reversed the decision and found the statute unconstitutional because it fails to consider the "unique attributes of youth."

The Legislature enacted an entire chapter of statutes in 1995 dedicated to addressing juvenile crime through treatment and resources outside the criminal justice system, but some crimes - like this one - are so grave that lawmakers granted automatic criminal court jurisdiction.

On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered whether the three conditions for reverse waiver are sufficient to satisfy procedural due process rights or if courts should be required to include an age analysis in their final decision.

A reverse waiver is a legal process that moves a juvenile's criminal case from adult court to the juvenile justice system.

Mann-Tate had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, if convicted, he would not get needed treatment in the criminal justice system, that transferring to juvenile court would not diminish the severity of his offense and that retaining jurisdiction is not necessary for deterrence.

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Jane Carroll found he did not meet his burden for the first two factors. The justices struggled with the first factor in particular, questioning how any judge could know what treatment a child so young might need down the road.

Newly elected Justice Chris Taylor repeatedly returned to the end of Carroll's decision, where she apparently says Mann-Tate's age is the most compelling factor in this case but that she cannot consider it because of how the statute is phrased.

Other justices disputed whether those were Carroll's exact words, and Assistant Attorney General Lisa Kumfer said point-blank Taylor was taking the sentence completely out of context.

The state asked the justices to overturn the appellate decision entirely and provide limited guidance on how judges can do so without using any "magic words."

Kumfer argued Mann-Tate was never entitled to the protections of juvenile court and that just because he failed to meet his burden doesn't mean the statute is unconstitutional in every application.

However, Taylor and Crawford struggled to square that with the shock value of a 10-year-old being tried as an adult. Carroll's decision seemed to say the statute prevented her from considering Mann-Tate's age at all. The newest members of the court repeatedly highlighted how unjust the law is here.

Though the state conceded the situation may be unfair, it is ultimately up to the Legislature to make the law and the bench to apply it.

"The mere fact that someone young did something horrible isn't a pass for the circuit court to absolve them of criminal liability," Kumfer said, adding the factors are broad and do allow for consideration of age.

Justice Rebecca Dallet cut through the debate on fairness to point out the text isn't clear enough on how much weight should be given to the defendant's age, and the court should provide guidance on that analysis.

Several doctors made competing diagnoses during the reverse waiver hearing, which Crawford asserted is not uncommon for a 10-year-old. No child that age could satisfy the first factor, she claimed, because it is impossible to know what treatment they may need eight to 10 years from now.

Equal Justice Initiative attorney Bryan Stevenson agreed and argued the justices should order the circuit court to consider age in a way that doesn't punish youth.

Though the liberal-leaning justices seemed to lean toward remand with instructions to consider the unique needs of a child his age, the entire bench was confused about what kind of challenge Stevenson intended to bring and which remedy he preferred.

The parties could not be immediately reached for comment after oral arguments.

Source: Courthouse News Service