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 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 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.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae In Support of Appellants Carp, Davis and Eliason (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively. Miller is retroactive because Kuntrell Jackson received the same relief on collateral review. Miller applies retroactively pursuant to Teague v. Lane. Miller is retroactive because it announces a substantive rule that categorically prohibits the imposition of mandatory life without parole on all juvenile offenders. Miller is retroactive because it involves a substantive interpretation of the Eighth Amendment that reflects the Supreme Court’s evolving understanding of child and adolescent development. Miller is a "watershed rule" under Teague. Once the Court declares a particular sentence "cruel and unusual" when imposed on a juvenile, the continued imposition of that sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Any life without parole sentences for a juvenile who did not kill or intend to kill is inconsistent with adolescent development and neuroscience research and unconstitutional pursuant to Miller and Graham. Intent to kill cannot be inferred when a juvenile is convicted of felony murder. Any life without parole sentence for a juvenile convicted of felony murder is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller and Graham. All juveniles convicted of murder in Michigan are entitled to individualized sentences that presumptively 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 Appellant, Petitioner on Review (full list of amici on cover of brief).

Argument: "Sophistication and maturity" is a term of art that must be interpreted in light of scientific research on adolescent development. The Oregon legislature's intent to limit waiver of offenders as young as J.C.N.-V. is supported by research on adolescent development as well as the adverse experience of youths in the adult criminal justice system. Oregon's avoidance canon obliges the court to reject the court of appeals' interpretation of the waiver statute.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Appellant, Petitioner on Review (full list of amici on cover of brief).

Argument: Oregon law required consideration of adolescent development as a component of the “sophistication and maturity” provision of the waiver statute. The waiver statute employs a term of art and must be interpreted in light of evolving science on adolescent sophistication and maturity. Statutory context, including developmental science and research, supports an entirely different interpretation than the court of appeals majority decision provides. The legislative history of Oregon’s waiver statutes does not support waiver in this case. Oregon’s avoidance canon obliges the court to reject the court of appeals interpretation of the waiver statute which violates due process. U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires objective consideration of a child’s age when interpreting his or her mindset in criminal contexts. Due process requires an individualized determination of the child’s culpability at the waiver hearing because of the liberty interest and potential harm at stake.

Brief of Northwestern University School of Law’s Children and Family Justice Center and Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Petitioner (full list of amici in appendix).

Argument: In recognizing that “children are different” from adults, Miller v. Alabama represents a transformation in law, practice, and constitutional jurisprudence relating to the punishment of children, thus warranting retroactive application. In the pre-Miller era of the juvenile “super-predator,” juvenile penalties often reflected the now-discredited premise that children who had committed serious crimes were irredeemable. Miller v. Alabama reboot: even the most serious child offenders are now considered potentially redeemable. Death is no longer uniquely different under the Eighth Amendment; after Miller v. Alabama, children are different too. Because of its transformative nature, Miller must be applied retroactively. As a matter of equity and evenhanded justice, Miller v. Alabama should apply retroactively.