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.”
Argued that placing the words “sex offender” on juvenile's driver’s license imposes stigma and restrictions in violation of procedural due process, as well as infringes reputation rights which are expressly protected by the Louisiana Constitution.
Argued that sentencing juveniles to extreme term-of-years sentences deprives them of a meaningful and realistic opportunity to obtain release and is thus unconstitutional pursuant to Graham v. Florida.
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 Mr. Martinez and Mr. Vallejo, who were sentenced prior to the Miller ruling. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion on October 16, 2015.
Argued that by imposing registration as a violent offender on juveniles without consideration of the distinguishing characteristics of youth or a youth’s individualized circumstances, Illinois’ Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act (VOYRA) violates both Illinois and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
Argued that the California Supreme Court should adopt a presumption in favor of immaturity and against imposing life without parole upon juvenile offenders.
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 Vigil, 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 Griffin, 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 Songster, who was sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.
Argued that 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c), the federal statute prohibiting sexual acts with children under the age of 12, was unconstitutional when the accused is also under 12.
Juvenile Law Center was co-counsel in Montgomery v. Louisiana, a case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court holding that Miller v. Alabama (2012) applies retroactively to individuals serving mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences.
These briefs involved a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by four adults, including a uniformed police officer, on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins. Juvenile Law Center argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.
Supreme Court held the execution of juveniles unconstitutional. Juvenile Law Center’s brief argued the developmental differences between adolescents and adults in critical areas, including impulse control and understanding consequences.
One of the most important lessons from our 40 years of experience is that children involved with the justice and foster care systems need zealous legal advocates. Your support for our work is more important now than ever before.
Follow: