Sentencing
The Maryland Supreme Court held the Circuit Court did not properly consider Petitioner Howard Davis’ amenability to treatment in any institution, facility, or available programs under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 4-202.2(b) and remanded the case, ordering the trial court to apply the principles and conclusions regarding amenability to treatment to Howard Davis’ Case. The court offered the following language in support: “To determine amenability to treatment, the court…
From the introduction: “This paper shares the story behind the successful launch of a specialized correctional unit for emerging adults by three of the people closest and most integral to the experience. It is offered as a guide for jurisdictions that are interested in developing similar programs. It is important to note that this report…
From the conclusion: “Washington, DC has severe racial disparities in its justice-involved population. That should alarm local leadership and its residents. These disparities are rooted in policing practices that target communities of color, a lack of investment and opportunity in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods, and an overly punitive sentencing, parole, and corrections system. The current system…
From the conclusion: “Maryland has the most extreme racial disparities for those incarcerated for long terms in the United States. That should alarm Maryland leadership and its residents. These disparities are rooted in policing practices that target communities of color, a lack of investment and opportunity in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods, and an overly punitive sentencing,…
This case holds that the superpredator theory constituted materially false, and, therefore, unreliable, evidence on which the sentencing court substantially relied and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant?s motion to correct an illegal sentence.
This article argues the Supreme Court’s recognition that children “are different than adults” creates a substantive due process right for every child to have an individualized assessment of their youthfulness at all critical junctures of a juvenile court proceeding, including transfer hearings. The article reviews transfer hearing statutes across the country and also analyzes fourteen…
This article from Dr. Antoinette Kavanaugh and Dr. Thomas Grisso examines the roles experts can play in “Montgomery” resentencing cases. From the article: “In summary, experts can play an important role in the approximately five hundred Miller/ Montgomery cases pending in Pennsylvania’s courts. Experts retained by the defense can serve as educators or evaluators. In…
The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth issued Trial Defense Guidelines for representing youth facing a possible life sentence. “The objective of these guidelines is to set forth a national standard of practice to ensure zealous, constitutionally effective representation for all juveniles facing a possible life sentence (“juvenile life”) consistent with the United States…
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 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 and others argues California Penal Code 190.5(b) is unconstitutional because it presumes life without parole is the appropriate sentence for certain young people in adult court and it disregards Miller’s requirement of individualized sentencing. Furthermore, amici argue that a young person’s sentence must provide a “meaningful opportunity to…
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 amicus brief by The Juvenile Law Center and The Gault Center wrote the amicus, urging the Supreme Court to Grant Certiorari in the case of Bunch v. Bobby. This brief argues that juvenile life without parole sentences are unconstitutional for non-homicide offenses as articulated in Graham must be applied to sentences that are the…
