Summary of Argument

By ignoring settled research on adolescent and child development, the trial court failed to adequately protect the due process rights of Paul Gingerich. In particular, the court failed in its obligation at three pivotal points in these proceedings to assure that Paul was competent: prior to the initiation of thetransfer hearing, at the transfer hearing itself and prior to acceptance of the plea agreement. The failure of the court to raise on its own or otherwise address the issue of competency violates the due process clause ofthe United States Constitution as well as Indiana law. This failure resulted in fundamentally unfair proceedings in juvenile and criminal court that can only be remedied by vacating the plea agreement.

Summary of Argument

The trial court's disregard for established research on adolescent and child development compromised Paul Gingerich's due process rights. The court neglected its duty to ensure Paul's competency at three critical junctures:

1. Pre-transfer hearing

2. Transfer hearing

3. Pre-plea agreement acceptance

This failure contravened both the United States Constitution's due process clause and Indiana law, resulting in fundamentally flawed proceedings in juvenile and criminal court. The only appropriate remedy is the annulment of the plea agreement.

Summary of Argument

The trial court neglected its duty to protect Paul Gingerich's due process rights by disregarding established research on child and adolescent development. The court failed to ensure Paul's competency at three crucial stages:

• Before the transfer hearing began

• During the transfer hearing

• Before accepting the plea agreement

Ignoring the issue of competency violates both the United States Constitution and Indiana law. This oversight led to unfair proceedings in both juvenile and criminal court. The only solution is to overturn the plea agreement.

The court's failure to address competency deprived Paul of a fair trial. Research shows that adolescents and children have different cognitive abilities and decision-making processes than adults. By not considering this, the court failed to adequately protect Paul's rights. As a result, the proceedings were fundamentally flawed and the plea agreement should be vacated.

Summary of Argument

The court didn't do its job in protecting Paul Gingerich's rights because it ignored what scientists know about how teenagers' brains work. The court should have made sure Paul was capable of making important decisions at three key times:

• Before the hearing to decide if he should be tried as an adult

• During the hearing itself

• Before he agreed to a plea deal

Because the court didn't do this, Paul didn't get a fair trial. The only way to fix this is to cancel the plea deal.

Summary of Argument

The court didn't do a good job of protecting Paul Gingerich's rights. They didn't make sure he understood what was happening at three important times:

• Before the hearing to decide if he should be tried as an adult

• At the hearing itself

• Before he agreed to a plea deal

The court should have made sure Paul understood what was going on because he's still a kid. Kids' brains are still growing, so they don't always understand things as well as adults.

Because the court didn't do its job, Paul didn't get a fair trial. The only way to fix this is to cancel the plea deal.