Posts in 'Amicus Curiae'

Our brief argued that appellant, sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile, is entitled to relief based on the second exception to the prohibition on filing a second or successive habeas petition, which allows a subsequent petition when it is premised on "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." 

Argued that Nebraska’s mandatory statutory sentencing scheme is now unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles.

Argued that children in dependency proceedings are entitled to attorneys who owe the same duty of confidentiality to their child-clients as they do to an adult client. 

Argued that a child who is wishes to file an appeal through counsel should have the right to do so, regardless of the position of any other party to the proceeding, including a guardian ad litem.

Argued that Petitioner's sentence is the equivalent of life without parole because Missouri law requires him to serve a minimum of 92 years before becoming parole-eligible. This sentence therefore violates the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Graham v. Florida, which held that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life for non-homicide offenses without a meaningful and realistic opportunity for re-entry into society prior to the expiration of their sentence.

Argued that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to address the failure of the market to provide affordable and appropriate health care for children who can neither purchase health insurance nor access health care on their own.

Argued that juveniles facing severe, adult-like consequences in the juvenile court system must be afforded the right to jury trials.

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.

Argued that failure of the court to address the issue of competency – on its own or otherwise -- violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution as well as Georgia law.

Argued that prosecuting a minor under a strict liability statute and shifting the burden to the minor to prove consent without the opportunity to confront his accuser at the subsequent  ‘consent’ hearing under the Michigan Sex Offenders Registration Act violates the minor’s due process rights.