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 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.