Posts in 'Amicus Curiae'

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Michigan Supreme Court •
We argued that People v. Skinner misinterprets the constitutional mandates of Miller and Montgomery which establish a presumption against imposing life without parole sentences on youth and places the burden on the prosecution to establish that an individual is among the rare irreparably corrupt juvenile offenders for whom rehabilitation is impossible.
Indiana Supreme Court •
Our brief highlighted developmental research that demonstrates children lack essential capacities to waive their Miranda rights and require heightened protections to determine the voluntariness of juvenile confessions. We further argued that parental involvement does not enhance the reliability of youth's waiver of their Miranda rights.
Youth Tried as Adults
New Mexico Supreme Court •
Our letter urged the court to allow the appeal because, despite a plea of guilty, children retain the right to appeal amenability proceedings for three reasons: (1) a child is not an adult criminal defendant, (2) an amenability proceeding is uniquely important and cannot be “bargained away,” and (3) a sentencing judge lacks jurisdiction to sentence a child as an adult barring a legal amenability hearing.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit •
Our brief argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's requirement for a meaningful opportunity for release creates an identifiable liberty interest in parole for all juvenile offenders, and the Due Process Clause requires procedural protections, including the appointment of counsel in parole hearings, when such a liberty interest is at stake.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Ohio Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the imposition of any life imprisonment sentence upon a juvenile offender, including a life tail, imposed without considering youth and its attendant characteristics, is unconstitutional under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court •
We argued that courts must consider the unique intersectionality of youth and race when applying the Fourth Amendment reasonable person analysis for seizures.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Montana Supreme Court •
Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus brief in support of Steven Keefe, who was sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed when he was under the age of 18.
Wisconsin Courts of Appeal •
Amici argued that courts must consider adolescent development when evaluating the validity of a Miranda waiver and the voluntariness of a confession and that youth cannot validly waive Miranda rights absent a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel.
Keeping Kids in the Community
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit •
Amici urged the Court to affirm the trial court ruling and uphold First Amendment protections for siblings, including cohabitating siblings in foster care.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Idaho Supreme Court •
Juvenile Law Center argued that the reasoning relied on by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons (prohibiting capital punishment for youth who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed) applies with equal force to young adults, such as James Hairston, and that legislative changes reflect an emerging national consensus that individuals under age 21 are less culpable for their criminal conduct than fully-developed adults.