Summary of Argument

Miller must be applied to Mr. Carp and others similarly situated under federal retroactivity principles. Although it dictates that sentencers follow a certain process and, for now, allows the imposition with life without parole for juveniles, Miller primarily imposes several substantive requirements that qualify for retroactive application. The substantive aspects stem from the fact that Miller: (1) made new facts essential to the imposition of LWOP forjuveniles and governs what sentencers must find; (2) gave juveniles a substantive, Eighth Amendment guarantee of a different sentence range and presumption against LWOP; (3) altered the class of offenders and the range of conduct subject to LWOP sentences; and (4) categorically barred mandatory LWOP for juveniles, which is recognized as a specific form of punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

That Miller should apply retroactively is reflected in the Supreme Court's decision itself, which applied the new rule to Kuntrell Jackson, who came before the Court on the same issue long after his conviction was final. Under Teague v Lane, even-handed justice requires that the new rule be applied to all who are similarly situated to the party whom the rule was originally applied to, which includes Mr. Carp and all others whose convictions are final.

Finally, even if it could be appropriately labelled as purely procedural, Miller represents a watershed change in the law that requires retroactive application under Teague v Lane. Miller recognized that most LWOP sentences are disproportionate and therefore grossly inaccurate when imposed without consideration of mitigating factors. Failure to apply Miller wouldseriously diminish the likelihood of obtaining accurate sentences for juveniles. Furthermore, Miller marks a sea-change in the law by applying, for the first time ever, the individualized capital-sentencing doctrine outside of the death penalty context. Doing so recognized for thefirst time that LWOP for juveniles is the same as death for adults, mandating the same substantive and procedural rules be applied in both contexts.

Applying the three criterion for retroactivity under state rules also compels application of Miller to Mr. Carp and others who are similarly situated. Miller itself indicated that juveniles subject to mandatory LWOP received cruel and unusual, and inaccurate sentences; thus its purpose implicates the integrity of the fact-finding process of sentencing in Michigan. Additionally, all juvenile lifers relied on the pre-Miller rule because they were barred across the board from presenting mitigation at their sentencing hearings. Moreover, all those juveniles received sentences that violated the Eighth Amendment and the vast majority of those would have received lesser sentences had Miller been followed. Finally, applying Miller retroactively would mean resentencing for a number of individuals that comprise less than one percent of the felony cases handled in Michigan for a single year, and the state could reap long term financial benefits from the reduced incarceration costs Miller will likely provide. Accordingly, retroactive application of Miller is required under state law as well.

Summary of Argument

Miller imposes substantive requirements that warrant retroactive application. These requirements include:

• Establishing new facts essential for imposing life without parole (LWOP) on juveniles

• Providing juveniles with an Eighth Amendment guarantee of a different sentence range and a presumption against LWOP

• Modifying the class of offenders and conduct subject to LWOP sentences

• Categorically prohibiting mandatory LWOP for juveniles

The Supreme Court's decision in Miller applied the new rule to Kuntrell Jackson, a case decided long after his conviction became final. Teague v. Lane dictates that similar treatment should be extended to all individuals in comparable circumstances, including Mr. Carp.

Retroactivity under Teague v. Lane

Even if Miller were considered procedural, it constitutes a watershed change that necessitates retroactive application under Teague v. Lane. Miller acknowledges the disproportionality of most LWOP sentences imposed without considering mitigating factors, highlighting the need for accurate sentencing for juveniles. Additionally, Miller represents a significant shift in jurisprudence by extending the individualized capital-sentencing doctrine beyond the death penalty context, recognizing the equivalence of LWOP for juveniles to death for adults.

Retroactivity under State Rules

Applying the criteria for retroactivity under state rules also supports the retroactive application of Miller:

• Miller addresses the integrity of the sentencing process by recognizing the cruelty and inaccuracy of mandatory LWOP for juveniles.

• Juvenile lifers relied on the pre-Miller rule, which prevented them from presenting mitigating evidence.

• The sentences imposed on these juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment, and most would have received lesser sentences under Miller.

• Retroactive application would affect a small percentage of felony cases, potentially leading to financial benefits from reduced incarceration costs.

Therefore, both federal and state law mandate the retroactive application of Miller to Mr. Carp and others similarly situated.

Summary of Argument

Miller is a Supreme Court decision that changed the way juveniles are sentenced for serious crimes. It requires judges to consider a juvenile's age and other factors before imposing a sentence of life without parole (LWOP). Miller found that LWOP for juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment in most cases.

Retroactivity of Miller

Retroactive application means that a new rule of law applies to cases that were already decided. Miller should be applied retroactively to Mr. Carp and other juvenile offenders who were sentenced to LWOP before the decision was made.

Reasons for Retroactive Application

• Miller made significant changes to the law, including:

  • Requiring judges to consider mitigating factors before imposing LWOP.

  • Creating a presumption against LWOP for juveniles.

  • Prohibiting mandatory LWOP sentences for juveniles.

• These changes affect the fairness and accuracy of sentences for juvenile offenders.

• The Supreme Court applied Miller retroactively in a similar case, indicating that it should apply to all similarly situated individuals.

• Retroactive application would ensure that all juvenile offenders receive the benefit of the new rule.

Conclusion

Applying Miller retroactively is essential to ensure that juvenile offenders are sentenced fairly and in accordance with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It would also promote accuracy in sentencing and reduce the financial burden on the state by decreasing the number of individuals serving LWOP sentences.

Summary of Argument

What is Miller and Why is it Important?

Miller is a rule that says judges must consider certain things before sentencing young people to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP). It says that:

• Young people's brains are still developing, so they may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

• Young people have a greater chance of changing and becoming better people.

• LWOP is a very harsh punishment that should only be used in the rarest cases.

Retroactivity: Should Miller Apply to Past Cases?

Some people believe that Miller should apply to people who were sentenced to LWOP as juveniles before the rule was created. They argue that:

• It's unfair to treat people differently based on when they were sentenced.

• Young people who were sentenced to LWOP in the past deserve a chance to have their sentences reviewed.

• Applying Miller to past cases would help to correct past injustices.

Arguments for Retroactivity

• Miller is a major change in the law that recognizes the unique circumstances of juveniles.

• It would be unfair to deny people who were sentenced before Miller the same protections.

• Retroactive application would ensure that all juveniles who are sentenced to LWOP receive a fair and individualized sentence.

Arguments Against Retroactivity

• Some people argue that Miller should not apply to past cases because it would be too disruptive.

• They say that it would be expensive and time-consuming to resentence all of the people who are currently serving LWOP for crimes they committed as juveniles.

• They also argue that it would be unfair to the victims of these crimes to have the sentences of their attackers reduced.

Conclusion

The question of whether or not Miller should apply retroactively is a complex one. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue. Ultimately, it is up to the courts to decide whether or not to apply Miller to past cases.

Summary of Argument

There's a famous court case called Miller that found judges have to think very carefully before giving kids and teens life in prison without the chance of getting out. This law is important because it says:

• Kids are different from adults and need to be treated differently.

• Judges need to look at all the things that might have made a kid do something bad.

• Most kids who get life in prison shouldn't have to stay there forever.

Some people think this rule should apply to kids who were already sentenced to life in prison before the rule was made. They say it's not fair to keep those kids in prison forever when the rule now says they shouldn't have gotten that sentence in the first place.

There are also reasons why it's good for the state to give these kids a second chance. It costs a lot of money to keep people in prison, and if some of these kids are let out, the state could save money.