Our brief argued that the court violated A.W.’s constitutional rights by failing to provide notice at the time of his plea that completing sex offender treatment was a necessary condition to avoid imposition of an adult sentence and that the court violated his rights and Ohio law by imposing the adult sentence for a condition that, due to time constraints, was impossible for A.W. to meet.
Our brief argued that the court impermissibly considered B.O.J.'s gender and dependency status, in direct contradiction to Washington State statute, resulting in an inappropriate lengthy term of incarceration for very minor offenses. Our brief highlighted research demonstrating that girls, particularly girls of color and those involved in both the delinquency and dependency systems, are often punished more severely by courts, under the justification of providing treatment and protection, than their male peers for the same or more severe offenses.
Our Petition urged the court to grant review in order to ensure that Batts II is given full effect and to determine if the right to effective assistance of counsel is denied where a viable claim of voluntary intoxication is not presented despite the presence of lay and expert witnesses available to support such a defense and where such a defense was not explained to a minor defendant.
We urged the court to grant review to ensure that children who experience discrimination in school can benefit from the protections of the PHRA. We argued that minority tolling is a vital protection for Pennsylvania’s children, as it is fundamentally unfair to hold children like N.B. to the same statute of limitations as adults.
We argued that the entirety of § 12-15-204, which required young people in Alabama charged with certain crimes to be prosecuted in adult court, was unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.
Our brief argued that the 1996 Amendment which provided for a maximum of a 5-year setback after parole application denial does not apply retroactively to juveniles or adults. Arguing that the amendment risked increasing terms of incarceration for those it is applied to retroactively, the brief suggests that it violates the state and federal constitutional ex post facto provisions.
Sign up to get breaking news from Juvenile Law Center.