Culpability
The Kansas Court of Appeals held that a youth may not be prosecuted as an adult if they were under the age of 13 at the time of the offense based on the court’s statutory interpretation of K.S.A. 38-2347. The court stated in relevant part: “From this review, we do not find that the Legislature…
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ended the use of mandatory life without parole for felony murder cases based on the state constitution’s prohibition against cruel punishment. Finding that Pennsylvania’s constitutional safeguards against cruel punishment offers greater protections than the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Court reasoned that the blanket imposition of mandatory life…
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that a trial court must consider mental health attributes at sentencing pursuant to the Eighth Amendment and the Oregon state constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court stated in relevant part: “We agree with defendant that ORS 131.295 and ORS 131.300 provide that objective societal standard. Through…
The California Supreme Court found that a small amount of loose marijuana scattered on the rear floor of a car does not violate a state statute prohibiting driving while under the impairment of marijuana. The court further held that these circumstances did not create probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle. The court…
The Illinois appellate court reversed the trial court’s sentence of 14 years for an aggravated driving under the influence and reckless homicide conviction based on defense counsel’s failure to produce evidence related to youth-based factors in mitigation. The court offered the following language in support. “Because defendant was a minor when the crash occurred, the…
From the Abstract: In Maine, there is no such thing as a child too young to be prosecuted. Maine’s Juvenile Code grants the juvenile court jurisdiction over a child of any age, even one who would have been considered too young to prosecute in the fifteenth century. As of 2024, just over half of states…
In this amicus brief (and a companion brief filed in Michigan v. Andrew Czarnecki), Fair and Just Prosecution urges the Michigan Supreme Court to extend 19- and 20-year olds its finding that life without parole sentences for young people violate state and federal constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
From the Abstract: “Modern doctrine and scholarship largely take it for granted that offenders should be criminally punished for reckless acts. Yet, developments in our understanding of human behavior can shed light on how we define and attribute criminal liability, or at least force us to grapple with the categories that have existed for so…
From the introduction: ” Recent Supreme Court cases have recognized the science underlying the common-sense notion that children are not “little adults.” Their brains function in a completely different manner than those of adults. In 2005, the Court abolished the juvenile death penalty and recognized the neuroscience underlying the claim that those under the age…
The Iowa Supreme Court struck down mandatory minimum sentencing schemes as applied to a young person transferred to adult court, finding mandatory minimum sentences to be in violation of federal and state prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment and the best interest clause in Iowa’s juvenile code. The court notes “the statutory recognition of the…
This amicus brief by Juvenile Law Center, The Gault Center, and others argues Ohio’s mandatory bindover statute violates the Due Process protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as the mandatory scheme does not allow for individualized sentencing and recognition of the unique characteristics of youth. Further, amici argue individualized transfer proceedings…
This amici brief by Juvenile Law Center, Loyola Civitas Childlaw Clinic, and others argues automatic prosecution and mandatory sentencing of young people charged with felony murder is unconstitutional in light of recent Supreme Court case law as Illinois law does not allow for individual sentencing based on maturity and culpability. Furthemore, the brief argues the…
This amicus brief by Juvenile Law Center argues California’s Penal Code Sec. 190.5(b) is unconstitutional because it presumes life without parole is an appropriate sentence for [youth] and this presumption contravenes Miller’s requirement of individualized sentencing and that this type of sentence be uncommon for young people. Furthermore, amici argue any life without parole sentence…
