Young teenage murder suspect faces possible life sentence in US

A panel of US judges will this week consider whether a 13-year-old boy accused of slaying his father’s fiancée should be tried as an adult and therefore face a possible life sentence.

Pennsylvania’s Superior Court is considering an appeal by defence lawyers, who want the teen, Jordan Brown, to be sent to a juvenile facility rather than face imprisonment without parole as an adult. Emotions were high ahead of tomorrow’s hearing, given the horrific nature of the crime and the broader legal implications that the three-judge panel must consider in the case.

Jordan Brown was just 11, a chubby schoolboy, when he allegedly shot Kenzie Houk, then eight months pregnant, in the back of the head in February 2009 in her rural home northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Prosecutors allege that the boy waited until his father left for work that Friday morning before entering Ms Houk’s bedroom and shooting her with a 20-gage shotgun.

After that, prosecutors say, he went to school, dropping the spent cartridge outside and leaving Ms Houk’s daughter, aged four, to discover the grisly scene.

Last year, a local judge ruled that Mr Brown, by then 13, should stand trial as an adult for what is being considered the double murder of Ms Houk and her near full-term baby son.

In the two years since the crime, Mr Brown has been in custody and the case has drawn attention to on how children are handled in the American criminal justice system.

Amnesty International has been prominent in campaigning to overturn the judge’s ruling, saying it is “deeply disturbed” by the fact that Mr Brown would, if convicted, never be free again.

However, under Pennsylvania law, a serious crime like a homicide is initially filed in criminal court unless the defence can make a case for sending it to the juvenile system.

In a criminal court, Mr Brown would be tried as an adult, whereas in juvenile court he would be tried as a minor and win release at 21, supposedly after rehabilitation.

An initial attempt by Mr Brown’s attorney to convince the court that the boy has potential to be rehabilitated failed when county Judge Dominick Motto issued his ruling last year.

Both sides have already filed written briefs before Pennsylvania’s highest court. Tomorrow, attorneys will make brief oral arguments, after which the court will rule – although there is no deadline for that to happen.The defence plans to argue that Mr Brown is trapped, since in order to prove that he can be rehabilitated he must accept responsibility for his actions, show remorse and an admission of guilt.