Posts in 'Amicus Curiae'

Argued that two juveniles' sentences of 70 and 90 years in prison for non-homicide offenses are unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's rulings in Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama. 

Argued that Massachusetts' sentencing scheme for juveniles 14 and older convicted of first degree murder is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama and that the Massachusetts Supreme Court must look to existing statutes to determine what constitutional sentence may be imposed. 

Argued that Colorado's mandatory statutory sentencing scheme for juveniles convicted of first degree murder is unconstitutional, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama. 

Petitioner Joseph Wang was sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile in federal court in New York. He had already filed federal habeas petitions before Miller was decided, and he now seeks to have his sentence revisited in light of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama.

Argued that Alaska’s Parental Notification Law, requiring minors to notify their parents when they choose to have an abortion, violates equal protection under the Alaska Constitution. 

Our brief argued that age and other circumstances must be considered in assessing if a youth voluntarily consented to a blood draw by a law enforcement official.

Our brief argued that appellant, sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile, is entitled to relief based on the second exception to the prohibition on filing a second or successive habeas petition, which allows a subsequent petition when it is premised on "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." 

Argued that Nebraska’s mandatory statutory sentencing scheme is now unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles.

Argued that children in dependency proceedings are entitled to attorneys who owe the same duty of confidentiality to their child-clients as they do to an adult client. 

Argued that a child who is wishes to file an appeal through counsel should have the right to do so, regardless of the position of any other party to the proceeding, including a guardian ad litem.