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 Pennsylvania’s mandatory sentencing scheme, which requires any juvenile convicted of first or second degree murder to be sentenced to life without parole, is unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama.
Argued that Section (a)(4) of the Criminal History Records Information Act (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9123(a)(4)) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the extent that it permits expungements to be denied solely on the basis of the Commonwealth’s refusal to consent, even in the absence of any evidence proffered by the Commonwealth and when all other statutory criteria are met.
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 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.
Argued that the highly intrusive search of a fifteen-year old public alternative school student, which occurred on school grounds, was unconstitutional, violating her right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.