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 that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Soto, Tulloch, Dingman, and Lopez, who were sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.
Argued that California's sentencing statute, in which the presumptive sentence for any juvenile age 16 or older convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama.
This brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court dealt with a Connecticut statute that allows a prosecutor to choose the forum in which youthful offenders are tried. Amici argued that this statute deprived youthful offenders of their right to due process by placing sole discretion to waive in the hands of the prosecutor.
This brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court dealt with a Connecticut statute governing transfer of juveniles to adult court. Amici argued that the statute, which gave the prosecutor sole discretion to transfer a juvenile's case to the adult criminal system, deprived juveniles of their right to due process.
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.