Felony Murder
The 1st District Court of Appeals of Michigan vacated a life without parole sentence following a felony murder conviction, finding that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to raise mitigating evidence on adolescent brain development and childhood trauma and abuse. The court stated in relevant part: Appellate counsel obtained a mitigation expert, Mary Cuddehe, to…
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…
“What makes a conviction wrongful? Developments in DNA science have led to a wave of exonerations over the past thirty years, revealing sources of error in the criminal legal process. Innocence organizations proliferated to represent people whose convictions could be overturned by newly discovered evidence. This is vital work for the individuals who are released…
The California Second District Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition orders related to a felony murder charge, finding that the record lacked substantial evidence that the youth acted with reckless indifference to human life. The court stated in relevant part: “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and measured against Emanuel‘s guidance, the…
The 6th District Court of Appeal in California reversed an order denying a resentencing petition based on trial counsel’s failure to raise the implications of youthfulness and adolescent development in disputing implied malice in a felony murder case. The court stated in relevant part: “Lopez, 20, participated in the attack on Sandoval with two peers.…
The Third District Court of Appeal in California vacated a felony murder conviction based on insufficient evidence to support the state’s required “reckless indifference” finding, which must also take into consideration youthfulness at the time of the incident. The court stated in relevant part: “Finally, defendant’s youth also cuts against a finding of reckless indifference. In Moore, supra,…
This report details the results of the first-ever state-wide Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) survey administered to people currently incarcerated for crimes they committed as children (under eighteen). The trauma measured from ACEs surveys include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; physical and emotional neglect; separation from parents; mental illness or substance abuse in the home; parent…
This article makes the argument against the imposition of life without parole for young people who commit felony murder using an adolescent development framework. The author analyzes existing case law to outline that, just as the U.S. Supreme Court found the death penalty inappropriate for felony murder and relied on adolescent brain development research in…
This Article is one of the first to explore the racialized impact of the two most controversial and ubiquitous forms of what we call “imputed liability murder.” An analysis of ten years of murder prosecutions in the state of Minnesota reveals that imputed liability murder is anything but a fringe subtype of homicide: an astounding…
This affidavit relies on adolescent development research to conclude that felony murder should not be applied to youth, given that young people’s ongoing brain and psychosocial development goes against the very premise of felony murder. This affidavit emphasizes how felony murder perpetuates racial disparities and is contrary to adolescent development principles—namely that youth experience more…
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…
This amici brief prepared by the Juvenile Law Center et al. highlights the particular characteristics of adolescent development and youth that make juvenile life without parole sentences unconstitutional and in violation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The brief addresses youth’s culpability, potential for change, and risk taking behavior compared to adults as…
This amicus brief by Juvenile Law Center, Campaign for Youth Justice, and The Gault Center argues the transfer hearing in the state juvenile court deprived the young person of due process when the judge only considered the intentional murder charge, when they were ultimately convicted on the lesser offense of felony murder and second degree…
