Posts in 'Amicus Curiae'

Argued that the juvenile court erred by waiving its jurisdiction of a youth and transferring the youth to adult court based on the charged offense alone, without an individualized determination of the youth's maturity, culpability, and capacity for change.

Argued that rulings on discretionary transfers from juvenile to adult criminal court are subject to immediate appeal.

Challenging a Kentucky juvenile detention center’s policy of conducting suspicionless strip searches on juveniles arrested on minor violations

Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Mares, who was sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.

Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Soto, Tulloch, Dingman, and Lopez, who were sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.

Argued that the sentences imposed on two juveniles under Indiana's felony murder statute conflict with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as well as established research on adolescent brain science. On September 18, 2015 the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion.

Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Jones, who was sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.

Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Gordon, who was sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.

Argued that Ohio’s mandatory transfer law is unconstitutional because it does not allow for individualized determinations on the propriety of prosecuting certain minors in adult criminal court rather than juvenile court.

Argued that 19-year-old youth who works full time is eligible for extended dependency jurisdiction until age 21 under Act 91, Pennsylvania’s new law extending foster care to age 21. If a child is dependent, the juvenile court has plenary authority to craft and order a disposition that best meets the child’s needs and the purposes of the Juvenile Act, regardless of the funding source necessary to secure the disposition.