Supporting a juvenile defendant in Illinois who challenged the representation he received in court, when his defense lawyer sacrificed his defense believing that it was in the child’s "best interests."
Challenged the zero-tolerance approach to student misbehavior where a teen was sentenced to 100 days in juvenile detention for distributing a poem that mentioned bringing guns to school.
Argued for a half-brother’s standing to participate in child welfare proceedings involving his sibling and that the child advocate’s representation of both children constituted a conflict of interest.
Argued that due process is violated when a judge uses his independent knowledge about a youth’s child welfare history and involvement, including past misconduct, as evidence to adjudicate the youth delinquent in the juvenile justice system.
Challenged the zero-tolerance approach in the delinquency adjudication of an eighth-grade student whose creative writing assignment invoked an unhappy student who cut off his teacher’s head when she told him to shut up.
These briefs involved a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by four adults, including a uniformed police officer, on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins. Juvenile Law Center argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.
Argued that a sentence of 110 years to life (three consecutive life-terms) for a non-homicide offense committed as a juvenile violates the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Graham v. Florida.
Follow: