Fifth Amendment challenge to rebuttable presumption for adult prosecution

The Nevada Supreme Court held in In re William M, that is system of presumptive adult prosecution for certain age children accused of certain crimes, violates the Fifth Amendment. I think the case may be distinguishable from Kansas in some respects, because the Nevada scheme sets up a certain requirement for rebuttal that would include requiring the juvenile to admit guilt (thus violation the Self-Incrimination Clause). But while K.S.A. 38-1636(a) and (e) are a little more vague as to the grounds for rebuttal, they may include "the seriousness of the alleged offense" and "whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive or willful manner," etc. I could see litigation of these claims implicating the same types on incrimination as that described in the Nevada case.

Anyway, it was an approach to attacking certification I hadn't thought of before!