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.
Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences in Miller v. Alabama should apply retroactively to juveniles who were sentenced to life without parole before the ban.
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 Songster, who was sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.
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.
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.