Posts in 'Direct Representation'

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama •
Our lawsuit alleges that the policies, procedures, and practices of the Alabama Parole Board do not afford those serving life with parole sentences for youthful offenses a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation as required by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Youth Tried as Adults
Pennsylvania Superior Court •
We argued that Jamie’s prior counsel failed to represent her effectively during her decertification proceeding. Among other failures, Jamie’s prior counsel failed to investigate, develop, or present to the court the substantial evidence demonstrating that Jamie was highly amenable to treatment in the juvenile system, including evidence of the emotionally and physically abusive nature of her relationship. The petition further argued that Jamie’s guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary due to her prior counsel’s errors during the guilty plea and sentencing process.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that arguing that a de facto life without parole sentence cannot be constitutionally imposed on a youth without a finding of permanent incorrigibility, and that the trial court committed a legal error by failing to consider the Miller factors on the record before sentencing.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida •
Juvenile Law Center, with co-counsel Holland & Knight LLP, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of over 100 individuals incarcerated in Florida who were sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18, but who are destined to die in prison because of the unconstitutional rules, policies, and practices of the Florida parole system.
Solitary Confinement & Harsh Conditions
United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana •
Our lawsuit alleges that OJJ's insufficient response to COVID-19 is punishment rather than rehabilitation and places confined youth at substantial risk of serious physical, mental, developmental, and emotional harm. We allege that OJJ has failed to implement CDC recommended social distancing, proper sanitation, and hygiene practices or to reduce the population of confined youth to effectively limit the spread of COVID-19 within the facilities.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Juvenile Law Center joined the Montgomery County Office of the Public Defender as co-counsel for James in his appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania challenging James's Assault by Life Prisoner sentence as unconstitutional because the underlying predicate sentence was unconstitutional.
Solitary Confinement & Harsh Conditions
Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Juvenile Law Center, the Youth Sentencing  & Reentry Project and DLA Piper filed a King’s Bench Petition in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on behalf of all Pennsylvania youth currently held in juvenile detention centers, county jails, or longer term correctional or residential placements during the COVID-19 crisis.
Sex Offender Registration of Children (SORNA)
United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama •
Attorneys from Juvenile Law Center and SPLC filed a lawsuit challenging Alabama’s Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act, which imposes a lifetime obligation to register as a sex offender for children tried and convicted as adults for sex offenses.
Solitary Confinement & Harsh Conditions
United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania •
Juvenile Law Center, Education Law Center, and attorneys from Dechert, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit against Glen Mills Schools and Pennsylvania state officials on behalf of hundreds of youth who suffered at the hands of Glen Mills leadership and staff.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that Mr. Stahley’s sentence of life without parole is unconstitutional, because it was imposed without the protections of Batts II and because the court failed to consider evidence of his rehabilitation and rehabilitative potential, as well as the hallmark characteristics of youth as required by Miller.