Recent legislative changes to Virginia Code 16.1-272 give the judiciary greater guidance and discretion in sentencing youth convicted of felony offenses in Virginia. This program features an overview of the blended sentencing provisions for juveniles transferred to circuit court followed by a discussion of the new sentencing provisions passed earlier this year.

Speakers: Stephen Harper, Paul Mones

NACDL endorses the proposed Trial Defense Guidelines for Representing a Child Facing a Possible Life Sentence, and recommends that in any jurisdiction which permits the imposition of life sentences upon a child, the public and private defense bar should advocate to ensure that these standards are implemented and that the jurisdictions prosecuting those cases provide adequate resources to ensure compliance with these guidelines

from Capital Sentencing and the Graham-Miller Resentencing to Sentencing in all Cases

Keynote speakers from the 2020 Presidential Summit and Sentencing Symposium, co-hosted with the Georgetown University Law Center American Criminal Law Review

Recent legislative changes to Virginia Code 16.1-272 give the judiciary greater guidance and discretion in sentencing youth convicted of felony offenses in Virginia. This 90 minute program will feature an overview of the blended sentencing provisions for juveniles transferred to circuit court followed by a discussion of the new sentencing provisions passed earlier this year.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Mississippi Office of the State Public Defender, and Mississippi Public Defenders Association In Support of Petitioner.

Argument: The Supreme Court has held that life without parole is appropriate only for a “permanently incorrigible” juvenile offender.  States like Mississippi that do not require a finding of permanent incorrigibility are not reliably implementing that command because offenders receive life-without-parole sentences even if they are capable of change.  Mississippi’s approach also produces arbitrary sentencing outcomes, because a juvenile’s sentence depends on whether his sentencer independently comprehends Miller, not on whether he is actually permanently incorrigible.  States that require a finding of permanent incorrigibility ensure that juvenile offenders only receive life-without-parole sentences when the sentence is proportionate and lawful.  Sentencers can still impose life-without-parole sentences when an offender is actually permanently incorrigible. 

Advocacy Call on Juvenile Life Without Parole

Three webcasts providing essential instruction for defense lawyers representing juveniles in adult court, supported by funding from the Foundation for Criminal Justice and the Ford Foundation.

The recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Graham, Miller and Jackson have greatly affected the sentencing of juveniles and all aspects of representing a juvenile client in adult court.

Brief of Amici Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. Supporting Respondent Jerri Smiley (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller v. Alabama reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition that children are categorically less culpable than adults. The U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence that children are different than adults in constitutionally relevant ways is not limited to a specific crime or sentence. Because of adolescents' reduced culpability, Missouri's armed criminal action statute cannot be mechanically applied to juvenile offenders. Incarcerating juvenile offenders in adult facilities diminishes public safety and places youth at risk of severe harm.

Brief of amicus curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of defendant-appellant.

Argument: The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that this case be remanded for individualized consideration of the ‘distinctive attributes of youth.’ The Supreme Court has held that children are constitutionally different from adults and cannot be sentenced to life without parole unless age is taken into account. The principles of Miller apply equally whether the LWOP sentence is mandated or imposed as a matter of discretion. Miller and the Supreme Court’s individualized sentencing cases require that the trial court actually consider and address the defendant’s youth. The record does not demonstrate that Eric Long’s age and attendant circumstances were considered in making the decision to sentence him to life without parole. This Court should, pursuant to Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, declare a life without parole sentence unconstitutional for any juvenile offender.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae on Behalf of Petitioners (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. Miller applies retroactively.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Appellee (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Massachusetts’s mandatory life without parole sentencing scheme for juveniles convicted of first degree murder is unconstitutional under the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Marquise Brown should be sentenced based on the most severe lesser included offense of manslaughter. Mandatory life with parole sentences contravene Miller  and Graham.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al.as amici curiae on Behalf of Appellant (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. California Penal Code § 190.5(b) is unconstitutional because it presumes that life without parole is the appropriate sentence for juvenile offenders. California’s presumptive juvenile life without parole statute contravenes Miller’s requirement of individual sentencing. California’s presumptive juvenile life without parole statute contravenes Miller’s requirement that juvenile life without parole sentences be uncommon. Absent a determination that appellant is among the ‘uncommon’ juveniles for whom a life without parole sentence is justified, his sentence must provide a meaningful opportunity for release.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Appellee Edwin Ike Mares (full list of amici in appendix to linked brief).

Argument: The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishment. Appellee’s mandatory life sentence is unconstitutional even in light of Wyoming’s post-millersentencing amendments. Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.