from Capital Sentencing and the Graham-Miller Resentencing to Sentencing in all Cases

Keynote speakers from the 2020 Presidential Summit and Sentencing Symposium, co-hosted with the Georgetown University Law Center American Criminal Law Review

Brief of Amici Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. Supporting Respondent Jerri Smiley (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller v. Alabama reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition that children are categorically less culpable than adults. The U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence that children are different than adults in constitutionally relevant ways is not limited to a specific crime or sentence. Because of adolescents' reduced culpability, Missouri's armed criminal action statute cannot be mechanically applied to juvenile offenders. Incarcerating juvenile offenders in adult facilities diminishes public safety and places youth at risk of severe harm.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Appellee (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Massachusetts’s mandatory life without parole sentencing scheme for juveniles convicted of first degree murder is unconstitutional under the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Marquise Brown should be sentenced based on the most severe lesser included offense of manslaughter. Mandatory life with parole sentences contravene Miller  and Graham.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al.as amici curiae on Behalf of Appellant (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. California Penal Code § 190.5(b) is unconstitutional because it presumes that life without parole is the appropriate sentence for juvenile offenders. California’s presumptive juvenile life without parole statute contravenes Miller’s requirement of individual sentencing. California’s presumptive juvenile life without parole statute contravenes Miller’s requirement that juvenile life without parole sentences be uncommon. Absent a determination that appellant is among the ‘uncommon’ juveniles for whom a life without parole sentence is justified, his sentence must provide a meaningful opportunity for release.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Appellee Edwin Ike Mares (full list of amici in appendix to linked brief).

Argument: The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishment. Appellee’s mandatory life sentence is unconstitutional even in light of Wyoming’s post-millersentencing amendments. Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Appellee Cameron Moon (full list of amici in appendix to linked brief).

Argument: U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence demonstrates that the state’s flawed reading of the Texas waiver statute is also constitutionally defective. The state’s flawed reading of Texas’s transfer statute runs afoul of constitutional requirement for an individualized judicial determination prior to trial in adult court, where youth are subject to mandatory sentencing statutes. The United States Supreme Court’s ‘kids are different’ jurisprudence is not limited to a particular type of crime, sentence or constitutional provision. Adoption of the state’s interpretation of the Texas statute would make Texas an outlier, allowing for the prosecution of youth as adults based on age and charge alone without an individualized determination of the youth’s maturity level and capacity for change and rehabilitation. Public policy and public opinion overwhelmingly oppose automatic transfer to adult court and mandatory imposition of adult sentences on youth.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae In Support of Appellants Carp, Davis and Eliason (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively. Miller is retroactive because Kuntrell Jackson received the same relief on collateral review. Miller applies retroactively pursuant to Teague v. Lane. Miller is retroactive because it announces a substantive rule that categorically prohibits the imposition of mandatory life without parole on all juvenile offenders. Miller is retroactive because it involves a substantive interpretation of the Eighth Amendment that reflects the Supreme Court’s evolving understanding of child and adolescent development. Miller is a "watershed rule" under Teague. Once the Court declares a particular sentence "cruel and unusual" when imposed on a juvenile, the continued imposition of that sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Any life without parole sentences for a juvenile who did not kill or intend to kill is inconsistent with adolescent development and neuroscience research and unconstitutional pursuant to Miller and Graham. Intent to kill cannot be inferred when a juvenile is convicted of felony murder. Any life without parole sentence for a juvenile convicted of felony murder is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller and Graham. All juveniles convicted of murder in Michigan are entitled to individualized sentences that presumptively provide a meaningful opportunity for release.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae on Behalf of Appellant (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively. Miller is retroactive because Kuntrell Jackson received the same relief on collateral review. Miller applies retroactively pursuant to Teague v. Lane. Miller is retroactive because it announces a substantive rule that categorically prohibits the imposition of mandatory life without parole on all juvenile offenders. Miller is retroactive because it involves a substantive interpretation of the Eighth Amendment that reflects the Supreme Court’s evolving understanding of child and adolescent development. Miller is a "watershed rule" under Teague. Once the Court declares a particular sentence "cruel and unusual" when imposed on a juvenile, the continued imposition of that sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, Loyola Civitas Childlaw Clinic, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant (full list of amici in Appendix A to attached brief).

Argument: U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence demonstrates that the automatic prosecution and mandatory sentencing of certain youth charged with murder as adults is unconstitutional. Under U.S. Supreme Court case law, Illinois’s transfer and mandatory sentencing statutes are unconstitutional because they do not allow for individualized sentencing of minors transferred to adult court and convicted of murder. Youth are fundamentally different from adults in constitutionally relevant ways. The Illinois automatic transfer and mandatory sentencing statutes are unconstitutional because they do not permit a sentencing court to consider the individual maturity and degree of culpability of each youth convicted of murder. The U.S. Supreme Court’s “kids are different” jurisprudence is not limited to a particular type of crime, sentence or constitutional provision. Illinois’ statutory scheme is unconstitutional because it subjects youth who were not principally responsible – such as those charged with felony murder or those charged under an accountability theory – to automatic transfer to adult court and mandatory sentencing without a court’s consideration of the constitutionally relevant attributes of adolescence. Illinois’s statutory scheme departs from national norms. Illinois is an outlier because its statutes require certain youth to be tried in adult court based on age and charge alone, without the opportunity for a court to make an individualized determination as to whether juvenile court jurisdiction would be more appropriate based on the youth’s unique degree of culpability and capacity for change and rehabilitation. Public policy and public opinion overwhelmingly opposes the automatic transfer to adult court and mandatory imposition of adult sentences without judicial review of the individual youth’s degree of culpability and amenability to rehabilitation.

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.

Brief for Amici Curiae Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Committee for Public Counsel Services, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Juvenile Defender Center, and National Juvenile Justice Network in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: 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.