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 imposing strict liability on a 12-year-old violates the US and Ohio Constitutions' guarantees of fundamental fairness, provides for highly disproportionate penalties and collateral consequences and creates a risk of prosecution based on personal views or biases.
Argued that Petitioner Bunch's sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida, which held that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole without a meaningful and realistic opportunity to re-enter society prior to the expiration of their sentences for non-homicide offenses.
This brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court dealt with a Connecticut statute governing transfer of juveniles to adult court. Amici argued that the statute, which gave the prosecutor sole discretion to transfer a juvenile's case to the adult criminal system, deprived juveniles of their right to due process.
This brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court dealt with a Connecticut statute that allows a prosecutor to choose the forum in which youthful offenders are tried. Amici argued that this statute deprived youthful offenders of their right to due process by placing sole discretion to waive in the hands of the prosecutor.
Challenged the court’s finding that an autistic juvenile was competent to stand trial and that there was sufficient grounds to adjudicate the juvenile delinquent based on resisting arrest and related charges.
Juvenile Law Center and two private attorneys filed this brief on behalf of an eleven-year-old charged with the murder of his stepmother. The brief argued that the trial court’s interpretation of the transfer statute requiring the juvenile’s confession at the pre-adjudicatory decertification hearing in order to demonstrate his ability to be rehabilitated in the juvenile system was in violation of his right against self-incrimination and rights to due process and fundamental fairness under both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.