The recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Graham, Miller and Jackson have greatly affected the sentencing of juveniles and all aspects of representing a juvenile client in adult court.

Three webcasts providing essential instruction for defense lawyers representing juveniles in adult court, supported by funding from the Foundation for Criminal Justice and the Ford Foundation.

Speakers: Stephen Harper, Paul Mones

Speakers: Erin Davies, Children's Law Center, Inc. (Kentucky); Deborah St. Jean, Juvenile Protection Division, Maryland State Public Defender Moderator: Cathryn Crawford, Defense Attorney/Juvenile Justice Expert

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Appellant, Petitioner on Review (full list of amici on cover of brief).

Argument: "Sophistication and maturity" is a term of art that must be interpreted in light of scientific research on adolescent development. The Oregon legislature's intent to limit waiver of offenders as young as J.C.N.-V. is supported by research on adolescent development as well as the adverse experience of youths in the adult criminal justice system. Oregon's avoidance canon obliges the court to reject the court of appeals' interpretation of the waiver statute.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Appellant, Petitioner on Review (full list of amici on cover of brief).

Argument: Oregon law required consideration of adolescent development as a component of the “sophistication and maturity” provision of the waiver statute. The waiver statute employs a term of art and must be interpreted in light of evolving science on adolescent sophistication and maturity. Statutory context, including developmental science and research, supports an entirely different interpretation than the court of appeals majority decision provides. The legislative history of Oregon’s waiver statutes does not support waiver in this case. Oregon’s avoidance canon obliges the court to reject the court of appeals interpretation of the waiver statute which violates due process. U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires objective consideration of a child’s age when interpreting his or her mindset in criminal contexts. Due process requires an individualized determination of the child’s culpability at the waiver hearing because of the liberty interest and potential harm at stake.

Speakers: Stephen Harper, Carol Kolinchak, Sonya Rudenstine  Moderator: Marsha Levick

Presentation given by Stephen K. Harper