Posts in 'Amicus Curiae'

Our brief argued that the 1996 Amendment which provided for a maximum of a 5-year setback after parole application denial does not apply retroactively to juveniles or adults. Arguing that the amendment risked increasing terms of incarceration for those it is applied to retroactively, the brief suggests that it violates the state and federal constitutional ex post facto provisions.

F.T. was sentenced to nearly 7 times the Juvenile Justice Act sentencing guidelines’ recommendation for shoplifting only $97 worth of candy and clothing. With no

We argued that criminal justice debt punishes those who exercise their constitutional right to be resentenced after receiving illegal life without parole sentences.

We urged the court to grant review to ensure that children who experience discrimination in school can benefit from the protections of the PHRA. We argued that minority tolling is a vital protection for Pennsylvania’s children, as it is fundamentally unfair to hold children like N.B. to the same statute of limitations as adults.

Our brief argued that the court impermissibly considered B.O.J.'s gender and dependency status, in direct contradiction to Washington State statute, resulting in an inappropriate lengthy term of incarceration for very minor offenses. Our brief highlighted research demonstrating that girls, particularly girls of color and those involved in both the delinquency and dependency systems, are often punished more severely by courts, under the justification of providing treatment and protection, than their male peers for the same or more severe offenses.

Our brief argued that the court violated A.W.’s constitutional rights by failing to provide notice at the time of his plea that completing sex offender treatment was a necessary condition to avoid imposition of an adult sentence and that the court violated his rights and Ohio law by imposing the adult sentence for a condition that, due to time constraints, was impossible for A.W. to meet.

Our brief argued that the federal and Michigan constitutions prohibit life sentences for youth absent a parole process that provides a meaningful and realistic opportunity for release, and that Michigan’s parole process fails to provide such an opportunity for individuals sentenced to parolable life as youth.

Our brief argued that the Eighth Amendment's protections apply with equal force to children who are serving lengthy term-of-years sentences and were convicted of multiple offenses.

Our brief argued that a juvenile disposition modification hearing is a “critical stage” in delinquency proceedings entitling children to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and that counsel who argues that a child should be placed in the harshest and most punitive setting available cannot be said to be providing effective assistance.

Our brief urged the court to grant certiorari to address the lower court’s failure to adequately consider Mr. Morrow’s childhood sexual abuse as powerful mitigating evidence counseling against the imposition of the death penalty.