Posts in 'Amicus Curiae'

We argued that Colorado's sex offender registration requirements are based on false presumptions about juvenile sexual offending and irreparably harm young offenders.

We urged the court to grant Mr. Taylor’s habeas petition and clarify the process and standards for others similarly situated in light of the fact that Miller and Montgomery establish a presumption against life without parole.

We argued that Arizona's postconviction evidentiary hearing is an inappropriate prerequisite to resentencing juvenile lifers because it places the burden on the defendant to demonstrate eligibility for a resentencing hearing.

We argued against the criminalization of children's ordinary schoolroom conduct such as "burping, laughing, and leaning into the classroom" and highlighted the devastating cost that such criminalization would have on children's education, health, and life chances.

Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of a 15-year-old who was transferred to adult court without citing any specific findings of fact or evidence underpinning the transfer decision, and subsequently sentenced to 99 years in an adult prison.

Our brief argued that because Mr. Rainer’s sentence deprives him of a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release” as mandated by Graham and Miller, it is the functional equivalent of life without parole and is unconstitutional despite being labeled as a term-of-years sentence. We further argued that even when juveniles commit multiple nonhomicide offenses they are entitled to a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release” under Graham.

We argued that an aggregate term-of-years sentence of 40 to life for nonhomicide offenses committed by a juvenile is the functional equivalent of life without parole and is therefore unconstitutional.

We argued that an aggregate sentence of 96 years for second degree murder under a theory of complicity is a nonhomicide crime under Graham because it does not require that a defendant kill or intend to kill, and is the functional equivalent of life without parole because it fails to provide a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release.”

We argued that Section 2313 of the Adoption Act of Pennsylvania unambiguously requires the appointment of client-directed counsel, not a best interests guardian ad litem, to represent a child's legal interests in a contested involuntary termination of parental rights hearing.

At ages 16 and 17, Treson Roberts and Zyion Houston-Sconiers stole candy and cell phones from teenage trick-or-treaters on Halloween. As a result of Washington’s automatic decline statute, they were each transferred to adult court and subjected to adult mandatory minimum sentences without a hearing or individualized determination of the appropriateness of the transfer. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Houston-Sconiers were sentenced to 26 plus years and 31 years respectively. We argued that this statutory scheme violates the procedural due process protections of the U.S. Constitution.