Brief filed: 11/28/2016
Bright v. Massachusetts
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 16-579
Case below 89 Mass.App.Ct. 1116 (Apr. 4, 2016), No. 14-P-546.
The individualized-sentencing requirement for juvenile offenders facing a life sentence protects against unconstitutional sentences. Parole does not resolve the constitutional violation caused by mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders. Parole boards were originally intended to base release decisions on demonstrated rehabilitation. The modern parole system does not provide a meaningful opportunity for juvenile offenders serving mandatory life sentences to demonstrate rehabilitation.
Pattern Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses: A Trial Strategy & Resource Guide
In a criminal trial, cross-examination of the prosecution’s forensic expert may make the difference between victory or defeat.
2020 Sample Motions Collection Update
NACDL’s 2020 Sample Motions Collection is the follow-up to our wildly popular 2019 Sample Motions Collection and contains the newest and most recent additions to our ever-expanding Sample Motions library.
State v. Stone - A Case Study on Child Sexual Molestation & Sexual Battery
The criminal defense attorney tasked with defending such a case has to be prepared to not only show reasonable doubt, but to answer this question: If it did not happen, how is it that the child believes it did happen?
POZNER ON CROSS: Advanced Cross of Experts & Officers in DUI Cases
It’s not your strong opening argument. It’s not how many of your impassioned objections the judge sustains. It’s not even how you tie your theory of the case together with a dazzling closing statement bow. What wins your trial is your cross.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
Felicia H. Ellsworth, Kevin S. Prussia, Denise W. Tsai, and Andrew M. Trombly, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA; Jeffrey T. Green, Washington, DC.