Legal Docket

Use the filters on the left to browse our legal docket.  For more information on race equity arguments, use this tool.

31 - 40 of 381 resultsReset
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

State v. Aston

Arizona Court of Appeals •
The brief argued that Mr. Aston's sentence is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, as he could not have been sentenced to anything less severe than life without parole. The brief further argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v. Mississippi does not affect the unconstitutionality of Mr. Aston’s natural life sentence under Miller and does not reflect a change in controlling law. 
Youth Tried as Adults

State v. Zarlengo

Ohio Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that because adolescents are uniquely vulnerable when plea bargaining, their decisions should not waive their ability to challenge the underlying transfer. We further argued that limiting the right to appeal an underlying probable cause determination will disproportionately impact Black youth, who are more likely to be transferred to the adult criminal system.
Youth Tried as Adults

Commonwealth v. Silvonek

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.
Economic Justice

State v. Z.C.

Alaska Supreme Court •
The brief argued that children in foster care desperately need their financial benefits, and that the law does not pose any obstacles to them receiving benefits. The brief further argued that OCS’s policy violates equal protection under the Alaska Constitution, and that plaintiffs are entitled to restitution. 
Economic Justice

Washington v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
The brief emphasized the significant harms that increased deductions cause to incarcerated people and their families, including that many incarcerated individuals lose the ability to pay for basic living needs. The brief also highlighted unique challenges the deductions would pose for young people, given their lack of access to economic resources.
Youth Tried as Adults

Morrison v. State

New Mexico District Courts •
Our letter argued that Ms. Morrison’s attorney failed to present mitigating evidence of her youthfulness and the abusive nature of her relationship during the sentencing phase of her case, despite U.S. Supreme Court precedent and American Bar Association standards that asserted the mitigating value of such evidence. 
Sex Offender Registration of Children (SORNA)

A.R. v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals •
Our brief argued that youth adjudicated for sexual offenses have exceptionally low recidivism rates, which makes it nearly impossible for the state to meet its burden of proof. We further argued that the state’s use of adult psychosexual risk assessments was inappropriate and did not provide sufficient evidence that A.R. is likely to commit a future sexual offense, that the discretionary registration standard is vulnerable to racial bias, and that registering youth as sex offenders has devastating consequences and contravenes the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that youth are less culpable and are amenable to rehabilitation.
Youth Tried as Adults

Commonwealth v. Green

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the public interest is served by transferring D.G. to juvenile court and that abundant research supports that young people are capable of positive change and rehabilitation. Our brief further argued that subjecting a child to the criminal system can have devastating consequences and that prosecuting a child in criminal court does not reduce recidivism or deter future crime.