Co-Sponsored by Georgetown University Law Center’s American Criminal Law Review

The landscape of sentencing policy has shifted in recent years, with federal and state lawmakers advocating fewer draconian penalties and beginning to scale back certain sentences. It is clear that the United States stands at a critical juncture for sentencing reform. This symposium is designed to equip practitioners and policy advocates with the latest strategies and research to seize the moment and foster more rational and humane policies.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Kenneth Robinson’s case is a quintessential example of why people plead guilty under the threat of a trial tax. Kenneth withstood the immense pressure to plead guilty. A child of only fifteen, charged with murder under the “hand of one, hand of all” doctrine, he exercised his right to a jury trial, foregoing a twenty-three-year offer to plea to manslaughter. He refused to relinquish his right to appeal, foregoing a thirty-year plea offer following guilty verdicts at trial. He paid the price. Most defendants plead guilty to avoid the trial tax; Kenneth went to trial, and the trial tax was levied against him in the form of a fifty-year sentence. By contrast, Kenneth’s co-defendants pleaded guilty and received significantly shorter sentences. NACDL is uniquely positioned to observe the criminal justice system. Over time, based on empirical data and the experiences of its members, NACDL has developed an understanding of the trial tax—the reality that individuals who choose to exercise their Sixth Amendment right to trial face exponentially higher sentences if they invoke the right to trial and lose. It is NACDL’s position that the trial tax is antithetical to the American concept of justice because it diminishes jury trials, undermines the legal system’s goal of truth-seeking, relieves the government of its burden of proof, contributes to wrongful convictions, and disproportionately hurts young people. Kenneth Robinson’s case in particular starkly reveals the dangers to a defendant who chooses to exercise his constitutional right to trial.

NACDL fully supports the concept that juveniles are different than adults and should be treated as such. NACDL encourages legislators to promote polices that evaluate juvenile family history and brain development prior to developing legislation that could in effect have profound implications on a juvenile's future.

Reports and other resources related to juvenile justice.

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

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

Recent legislative changes to Virginia Code 16.1-272 give the judiciary greater guidance and discretion in sentencing youth convicted of felony offenses in Virginia. This program features an overview of the blended sentencing provisions for juveniles transferred to circuit court followed by a discussion of the new sentencing provisions passed earlier this year.

Recent legislative changes to Virginia Code 16.1-272 give the judiciary greater guidance and discretion in sentencing youth convicted of felony offenses in Virginia. This 90 minute program will feature an overview of the blended sentencing provisions for juveniles transferred to circuit court followed by a discussion of the new sentencing provisions passed earlier this year.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Mississippi Office of the State Public Defender, and Mississippi Public Defenders Association In Support of Petitioner.

Argument: The Supreme Court has held that life without parole is appropriate only for a “permanently incorrigible” juvenile offender.  States like Mississippi that do not require a finding of permanent incorrigibility are not reliably implementing that command because offenders receive life-without-parole sentences even if they are capable of change.  Mississippi’s approach also produces arbitrary sentencing outcomes, because a juvenile’s sentence depends on whether his sentencer independently comprehends Miller, not on whether he is actually permanently incorrigible.  States that require a finding of permanent incorrigibility ensure that juvenile offenders only receive life-without-parole sentences when the sentence is proportionate and lawful.  Sentencers can still impose life-without-parole sentences when an offender is actually permanently incorrigible. 

Presented by Alisa Rachelle Blair, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles County Public Defender

Race Matters II: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice
January 10-11, 2019 | Los Angeles, CA

A coalition of national and local advocacy groups issued a call to state and local officials to stop rendering juvenile system fines and fee for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many families are already experiencing economic hardship, in addition to other suggested policy and legislative actions to reduce harm.

Presented by: Marsha Levick, Co-Founder, Deputy Director, Chief Counsel, Juvenile Law Center; and Dr. Jennifer Woolard, Associate Professor of Psychology, Georgetown University and Research Fellow, Center for Social Justice

This month Tony Bornstein reviews The Master Plan: My Journey from Life in Prison to a Life of Purpose by Chris Wilson with Bret Witter.

People exiting the custody of the criminal justice system encounter substantial challenges in gaining employment, finding housing, and accessing medical and mental health care. This article explores areas in need of attention and reform so that young people who have been adjudicated delinquent or convicted of a crime are not punished subsequently by other systems they encounter.