Argued that the automatic exclusion from juvenile court of certain youth charged with murder when combined with the imposition of mandatory sentences is unconstitutional, pursuant to recent Supreme Court rulings in Roper, Graham, and Miller.
Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP), Reducing Length of Stay, Reducing Transfers to the Adult System
Argued that the Oregon Appellate Court's interpretation of the state's juvenile transfer statute was so narrow that virtually all cases for youth aged 12 -14 will qualify for transfer to adult criminal court.
Argued that by imposing registration as a violent offender on juveniles without consideration of either the characteristics that distinguish youth from their adult counterparts or a youth’s individualized circumstances, Illinois’ Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act (VOYRA) is inconsistent with United States Supreme Court and Illinois case law recognizing that kids are different from adults and violates both state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
Argued that Kentucky state law and established public policy disfavor adjudicating a minor child delinquent of sexual misconduct and possession and viewing of child pornography when consensual sexual contact and exchange of sexually explicit text messages occurs between two teens who are both below the age of consent.
Argued in support of Washington State’s standard for sealing juvenile records because it is aligned with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence in treating child offenders differently than adults and making it easier for children to seal their records upon completion of their sentences.
Argued that Petitioner Bunch's sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida, which held that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole without a meaningful and realistic opportunity to re-enter society prior to the expiration of their sentences for non-homicide offenses.
Argued that because Romero was an adolescent with no attorney, no other adult tasked with advocating for him, and had not even been informed by his own attorney that he had a right to appeal, he lacked adequate access to the courts. Therefore, jurisdictional limitations should be tolled during the period of his minority.
Argued that the juvenile court erred by waiving its jurisdiction of a youth and transferring the youth to adult court based on the charged offense alone, without an individualized determination of the youth's maturity, culpability, and capacity for change.
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.
One of the most important lessons from our 40 years of experience is that children involved with the justice and foster care systems need zealous legal advocates. Your support for our work is more important now than ever before.