The judge saw that he
a.Had possession of a weapon
b.Gave a false address to the police
c.Was left unsupervised at night
This lead the family court judge to come to the conclusion that "there is a substantial probability that he [Martin] will not appear in court on the return date or there is a serous risk that he may before the return date commit an act which if committed by an adult would constitute a crime". Martin was later found to be delinquent and was sentenced to two years probation.
However, during the time Martin was in pretrial detention, his attorneys filed a class action on behalf of all youths subject to preventative detention in New York, charging that this form of detention was violating their due-process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. His appeal was upheld because, at adjudication, most delinquents are released or placed on probation, not many of then were detained. So the appellate judge thought it was unfair to incarcerate them before trial. The prosecution brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court for final judgment.
The U.S. Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the pretrial detention was not for punishment. Since the prediction of future behavior was why the idea of a pretrial detention was brought up in the first place. Perhaps, the main goal was protection of both the juvenile and society from pretrial crime. Also some other safeguard prevail, such as, notice and a hearing, and a statement of facts that must be given to juveniles before they are placed in detention. In conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's right to place juveniles in...