The juvenile probation officers and evaluating psychologist all admitted that lying to police officers and probation would not support a finding that appellant is amenable to probation and programming. Appellant argues that this factor should weigh in favor of EJJ because he was never offered formal programming and that the district court erred in considering informal programming in his home and school. However, we have consistently held that, in the consideration of this factor, the district court may evaluate the juvenile’s willingness to cooperate with informal programming by considering his behavior in school, home, and juvenile detention and his affiliations with gangs. See In re Welfare of P.C.T., 823 N.W.2d 676, 683 (Minn.App.2012), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 2013) (<HOLDING>); see also In re Welfare of N.J.S., 753 N.W.2d
holding juveniles statement inadmissible when after being placed in custody police took juvenile to police station and held juvenile in area where adult suspects were held instead of taking juvenile to a juvenile processing office or any of the places listed as an alternative in section 5202 and placing juvenile in specifically designated office for juveniles holding that the court without violating due process of the law may conduct a hearing to determine whether to waive juvenile jurisdiction even if the juvenile fails to appear if counsel is present and allowed to participate on the juveniles behalf holding juveniles do not have constitutional right to a jury trial but striking down statute that allowed juveniles to receive adult sentence without a jury trial three justices dissented reasoning juveniles should be entitled to a juiy trial under all cases because changes to juvenile justice code treated juveniles like criminals recognizing juveniles right to counsel in certain juvenile proceedings holding that the juveniles failure to go to school or participate in online schooling did not support a finding that he was willing to cooperate with juvenile programming