Legal Docket

Use the filters on the left to browse our legal docket.

71 - 80 of 248 resultsReset
Access to Counsel
U.S. Supreme Court •

Argued that a ten-year-old is unlikely to fully understand and appreciate the nature of his Miranda rights and should not be able to waive them on his own.

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
U.S. Supreme Court •

Juvenile Law Center was co-counsel in Montgomery v. Louisiana, a case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court holding that Miller v. Alabama (2012) applies retroactively to individuals serving mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences.

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Ohio Supreme Court •

Argued that the court should clarify that Miller establishes a presumption against imposing juvenile life without parole; establish clear guidelines to ensure juvenile life without parole is not imposed arbitrarily and capriciously; and hold that juvenile life without parole can never be imposed when a juvenile is convicted based on a finding of “complicity.”

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Colorado Supreme Court •

Juvenile Law Center files an amicus brief on behalf of a juvenile sentenced to 112 years for nonhomicide offenses.

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Colorado Supreme Court •
Argued that youth's waiver of an unwaiverable conflict of interest violated his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Appellate Court of Illinois, Third Judicial District •

Argued that juvenile's sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles.

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
U.S. Supreme Court •

Argued that the automatic exclusion from juvenile court of certain youth charged with murder when combined with the imposition of mandatory sentences is unconstitutional, pursuant to recent Supreme Court rulings in Roper, Graham, and Miller.

Youth Tried as Adults
Ohio Supreme Court •

Arguing that an Ohio statute's presumption that a recorded custodial statement is prima facie voluntary violates constitutional due process requirements.