Posts in 'Amicus Curiae'

We argued that given youths’ general inability to pay bail, the risk of coerced guilty pleas, and the heightened danger of pretrial detention for youth, youth should receive a presumption of indigence to secure pretrial release.

Our brief urged the court to grant review and argued that “sophistication and maturity” is a term of art that requires interpretation according to the vast adolescent development science and research.

Our brief argued that J.L.’s removal violated Pennsylvania statute which requires that removal of a child only be used as a last resort and when clearly necessary to protect the child or the community. Our brief further outlined the ineffectiveness and long-lasting harms of residential placements on children. Finally, we highlighted research demonstrating that community-based services are effective in addressing truancy while preventing the harms of removal and placement.

Our letter argued that Mr. LaPlante’s sentence is the functional equivalent of a de facto life sentence and therefore unconstitutional.

Our brief challenged the constitutionality of Mr. Helm’s lengthy sentence, arguing that the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama requires sentencing courts provide system involved youth with a second chance to participate and engage with family and community, and individualized sentencing that takes account of the youth’s distinctive and hallmark developmental attributes.

Our brief focused specifically on the young adult population—18 to 25 year olds—who make up over one third of Pennsylvania’s current death row population and whose developmental traits of immature decision-making, impetuosity, susceptibility to negative peer influences, and greater capacity for rehabilitation further underscore the overall arbitrary and disproportionate nature of Pennsylvania’s death penalty.

Juvenile Law Center’s brief argued that a 65-year sentence does not provide a meaningful opportunity for release based upon demonstrated rehabilitation and maturity as required by United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. We further argued that young offenders’ distinct capacity for rehabilitation forecloses de facto life sentences and that age and the possibility of fulfillment outside prison walls, not life expectancy, determine whether a sentence provides a meaningful opportunity for release.

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.

F.T. was sentenced to nearly 7 times the Juvenile Justice Act sentencing guidelines’ recommendation for shoplifting only $97 worth of candy and clothing. With no

We argued that criminal justice debt punishes those who exercise their constitutional right to be resentenced after receiving illegal life without parole sentences.