Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Mares, who was sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.
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.
Argued that Colorado's mandatory statutory sentencing scheme for juveniles convicted of first degree murder is unconstitutional, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama.
Argued that, to the extent that juvenie life without parole (JLWOP) sentences are ever constitutional, the sentencing judge must consider the factors laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama before sentencing a child to die in prison.
Argued that a provision in New Mexico state law allowing juveniles to be sentenced by juvenile court judges as adults if the judge found them “not amenable to treatment” was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment.
Argued that a New Jersey statute governing transfer of juveniles to adult court, and the Attorney General Waiver Guidelines, as applied, violated a juvenile’s right to due process, and violated the separation of powers clause of the New Jersey State Constitution.
Argued that Nebraska’s mandatory statutory sentencing scheme is now unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles.
Argued that certification hearing deprived Appellant of due process, that juveniles are particularly susceptible to the pressure and coercion that are central to felony-murder and manslaughter, and that juvenile developmental status is relevant to constitutional analysis.
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.