Summary

Portrait of Abe Fortas Abe Fortas Kent v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The right to representation by counsel is not a formality. It is not a grudging gesture to a ritualistic requirement. It is of the essence of justice. Appointment of counsel without affording an opportunity for hearing on a 'critically important' decision is tantamount to denial of counsel. There is no justification for the failure of the Juvenile Court to rule on the motion for hearing filed by petitioner's counsel, and it was error to fail to grant a hearing.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Abe Fortas Abe Fortas Kent v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Correspondingly, we conclude that an opportunity for a hearing which may be informal, must be given the child prior to entry of a waiver order. Under Black, the child is entitled to counsel in connection with a waiver proceeding, and under Watkins, counsel is entitled to see the child's social records. These rights are meaningless-an illusion, a mockery-unless counsel is given an opportunity to function.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Abe Fortas Abe Fortas Kent v. United States — Opinion of the Court

We do not consider whether, on the merits, Kent should have been transferred; but there is no place in our system of law for reaching a result of such tremendous consequences without ceremony without hearing, without effective assistance of counsel, without a statement of reasons. It is inconceivable that a court of justice dealing with adults, with respect to a similar issue, would proceed in this manner. It would be extraordinary if society's special concern for children, as reflected in the District of Columbia's Juvenile Court Act, permitted this procedure. We hold that it does not.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature