Youth in Adult Court

You must be logged into your Gault Center account to view this page.

Juvenile Law Center Amicus Brieft, California v. Moffett

Categories: , , ,

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…

Commonwealth v. Robertson, 431 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013)

Categories: , ,

The Kentucky Court of Appeals vacated a young person’s conviction in adult court based on ineffective assistance of counsel during the transfer hearing. Noting transfer as a critical stage in the proceeding and defense counsel’s failure to present any lay or expert witnesses and effectively cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, the court concluded that the transfer…

Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth

Categories: , ,

From the introduction: “This report will describe, dissect, and draw lessons from Connecticut’s striking success in juvenile justice reform for other states and communities seeking similar progress. The first section details the timeline and dimensions of change in Connecticut’s juvenile justice system over the past two decades. In 1992, Connecticut routinely locked up hundreds of…

Juvenile Law Center and The Gault Center Amicus Brief, Bunch v. Bobby

Categories: , ,

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…

Juvenile Law Center et al. Amicus Brief, Miller v. Alabama

Categories: ,

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…

Juvenile Law Center Amicus Brief, Minnesota v. Grigsby

Categories: , ,

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…

The Children and Family Justice Center and The Gault Center Amicus Brief, Illinois v. Salas

Categories: , ,

This amicus brief by Juvenile Law Center and The Gault Center argues Illinois automatic transfer law does not comply with recent research and findings on adolescent development as recognized by the Supreme Court jurisprudence in Roper and Graham. Further, amici argue the state’s automatic transfer statute violates the proportionality clause of Article I, Section 11…

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)

Categories: , , ,

The U.S. Supreme Court held juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses violates the 8th Amendment and offered the following language in support. “Roper established that because juveniles have lessened culpability they are less deserving of the most severe punishments. 543 U.S., at 569, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1. As compared…

Juvenile Law Center, The Gault Center et al. Amicus Brief, Graham v. Florida

Categories: , , ,

This amicus brief by The Juvenile Law Center, The Gault Center, and others highlights the unique developmental status of youth, relevant social science research, and Supreme Court Jurisprudence, that make a life without parole sentence for non-homicide crimes unconstitutional in violation of the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As stated in their brief: “The…

Bouge v. Reed, 459 P.2d 869 (Or. Sup. Ct. 1969)

Categories: , ,

The Oregon Supreme Court held the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires states to “accord a hearing before a [youth]can be remanded to the adult criminal process.” In this case, the remand statute at issue ORS 419.533 did not expressly provide for a hearing before transfer to adult court but the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the intent…