Legal Docket

Use the filters on the left to browse our legal docket.  For more information on race equity arguments, use this tool.

Date
131 - 140 of 449 resultsReset
Youth Interrogations & Access to Counsel

People v. Ross

Michigan Supreme Court •
We argued that the right to counsel for youth is secured under the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of fundamental fairness in juvenile proceedings. We further argued that fundamental fairness requires: (1) an exacting standard for the effective representation of counsel that accounts for the developmental status of youth, (2) diligent youth-centered representation, and (3) a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. By contrast, under the Sixth Amendment’s Strickland standard the requirement that criminal defendants prove prejudice creates an unduly heavy burden for youthful defendants.
Youth Interrogations & Access to Counsel

State v. M.S.

Washington Supreme Court •
Sixteen-year-old M.S. agreed to a deferred believing he was subject to a standard range sentence. Subsequently, under Washington’s Manifest Injustice provision of the Juvenile Code, the court imposed a longer sentence on M.S. based on aggravating factors that are not identified in Washington’s Juvenile Justice Act and that he had no notice of at the time he made his agreement. M.S.’s sentence was twelve times longer than the maximum standard range.
Youth Interrogations & Access to Counsel

State v. D.L.

Washington Supreme Court •
We argued that the Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees requires juvenile offenders receive notice of the aggravating factors a court may rely on to impose a manifest injustice sentence before the entry of a guilty plea or agreeing to a deferred disposition.
Youth Interrogations & Access to Counsel

In re P.G.F.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
We argued that the legal interests at stake in termination proceedings are distinct from the child’s custodial preferences and that counsel for a child’s legal interest in a TPR hearing must advise the child in an age-appropriate manner, and must ascertain and advocate for that child’s preferred outcome in the termination petition.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Manning

Michigan Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the imposition of a mandatory life sentence on an 18-year-old violates the Eighth Amendment because young adults possess the same relevant characteristics as youth under 18.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

State v. Booker

Tennessee Supreme Court •
We argued that Tyshon's sentence is a de facto life sentence that provides no meaningful opportunity for release in violation of Miller's requirement that youth and its attendant characteristics be considered before imposing such a sentence.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Jones v. Mississippi

U.S. Supreme Court •
We argued that the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencer to determine that a juvenile offender is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole in order to give effect to the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Miller and Montgomery and to ensure that juvenile life without parole sentences are truly rare. We further argued that requiring a finding of permanent incorrigibility helps root out racial bias in sentencing and ensures meaningful appellate review.
Solitary Confinement & Harsh Conditions

J.H. v. Edwards

United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana •
Our lawsuit alleges that OJJ's insufficient response to COVID-19 is punishment rather than rehabilitation and places confined youth at substantial risk of serious physical, mental, developmental, and emotional harm. We allege that OJJ has failed to implement CDC recommended social distancing, proper sanitation, and hygiene practices or to reduce the population of confined youth to effectively limit the spread of COVID-19 within the facilities.