Challenged the adequacy of Philadelphia’s program of aftercare probation, which was responsible for a child’s course of treatment in, discharge from, and supervision following detention for juvenile offenses.
Briefed the issues of constitutionality and racial disparity in the application of a statute allowing prosecutors discretion to file charges against minors directly in criminal court without a prior adjudication of a minor’s lack of fitness for juvenile disposition.
Challenged a provision of the PA Juvenile Act that barred Philadelphia adjudicated youth from returning to their regular public schools after they were discharged from residential delinquency placements.
Supreme Court held the execution of juveniles unconstitutional. Juvenile Law Center’s brief argued the developmental differences between adolescents and adults in critical areas, including impulse control and understanding consequences.
Argued against Colorado’s “direct file” statute on the grounds that it violates equal protection guarantees, contravenes separation of powers principles, and denies a defendant due process where statute allows sentencing as an adult following conviction for a crime that would not have made him eligible for adult prosecution.
Motions were filed with the juvenile court seeking nunc pro tunc relief on behalf of youth who in York County had been adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses prior to December 2012 when the SORNA law went into effect. The motions for nunc pro tunc relief ask the court to reconsider their classification as juvenile sex offenders and remove their information from the sex offender registry.
These briefs involved a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by four adults, including a uniformed police officer, on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins. Juvenile Law Center argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.