Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior Amicus Brief, Arizona v. Jerald

This amicus brief from the Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior highlights the adolescent capacity for significant growth and social maturation as well as criminological evidence on the unlikelihood of reoffending and responsiveness to evidence-based treatment among youth accused of sex offenses. The brief ultimately calls for the court to find that a de facto life without parole sentence is grossly disproportionate based on developmental science and research.  

From the Summary of Argument: 

“Evan McCarrick Jerald is sentenced to a minimum 208 years in prison before parole eligibility following conviction on multiple counts of sexual misconduct with two minors under the age of 15 (life terms as discretionary sentences) and molestation of a minor (presumptive sentences). He was 15 – 16 years old at the time of his offenses but tried as an adult. Arizona law precludes consideration of consecutive sentences in a de facto life sentence analysis when the offender’s conduct was at the core of the criminal misconduct. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed that (a) this de facto life sentence cannot be reviewed on the basis of the actual outcome of imposition of individual consecutive sentences, (b) each sentence is not “grossly disproportionate” to the crimes committed, and (c) his trial as an adult was proper under A.R.S. § 13-705 (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) (State v. Jerald, No. 2 CA-CR 2021-0105 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2024)). The court opined that Evan’s severe punishment is justified by the impact  

of his crimes and that it saw “no basis for second guessing” a mitigation analysis by the sentencing court.1 Evan will die in prison for his crimes.  

Nonetheless, substantial developmental brain and social science support a view that the sentence imposed in this case is excessively “lengthy, flat and consecutive” although not mandatory, and also “grossly disproportionate” given his age and developmental stage at the time of his offenses, minimal likelihood of sexual recidivism, and the responsiveness of sexually abusive youth to evidence-based interventions.  

Robust brain and social sciences show that juveniles are neurologically and socially distinct from adults yet uniquely capable of positive growth, and so warrant different sentencing considerations. Adolescents (puberty–age 17) and emerging young adults (ages 18–25) demonstrate significant capacities for change through social learning, social maturation, improved decision-making, and increased emotional and behavioral control reflecting profound brain maturation. Maturational changes improve impulse control, risk assessment, planning, and self-regulation—capabilities most relevant to criminal acts. Our youthful selves simply neither determine nor predict our adult lives. 

The Court of Appeals upheld a sentence confining Evan for a minimum 208 years. This sentence is not required to achieve general (especially among juvenile offenders) or specific deterrence, nor community safety by lifelong incapacitation given treatment responsiveness of juvenile sexual offenders. It abandons rehabilitation. The sole penal justification is punishment, but the onerous sentence imposed is unnecessary to achieve even that goal and therefore grossly disproportionate. Adolescent sexual recidivism rates are between 2 – 7 percent and these individuals respond extremely well to evidence-based treatment. Evan’s sex offenses as a teenager – as serious as they are – should not dictate his death in prison.  

The legal landscape has shifted due to consistent findings in neuroscience, developmental behavioral sciences, and criminology. The weight of this science has moved courts and legislatures to bar mandatory life without possibility of parole even for juvenile homicides, reconsider discretionary life and de facto life sentences as developmental immaturity itself mitigates culpability, and to focus on the rehabilitation of youth and emerging young adults.8 This shift is reflected in landmark United States Supreme Court decisions such as Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). These cases reflect the Supreme Court’s reliance upon science to require sentencing courts to consider the unique mitigating attributes of youth, (e.g., immaturity, impulsivity, recklessness, peer influences, emotionally driven decision-making, remarkable capacities for change with maturation). 

Amicus urges the Court to reconsider the reality of Evan’s sentence in light of robust science findings in neurodevelopment, developmental psychology and social sciences, and criminology.”