Summary of Argument

Amicus CDAM addresses both questions presented by the Court.

On Question 1, Amicus argues that Poole’s successive motion for relief from judgment is “based on a retroactive change in law,” as defined by MCR 6.502(G)(2) due to the plain language of the provision, the meaning of related provisions of MCR 6.502(G) in the court rules, the function of MCR 6.502(G), and prior court practice. Given the importance of the well-functioning of our state post-conviction system - not just on this legal issue - Amicus delves deeper into Question 1 than the parties. In the alternative, if this Court accepts the Plaintiff’s invitation to adopt a narrow and forced understanding of the “based on” language under MCR 6.502(G), Amicus then encourages this Court to articulate a more capacious understanding of what is retroactive for purposes of state law.

On Question 2, Amicus offers two points. First, Amicus draws on Michigan-specific sources to provide a deeper historical understanding of the broader protection of our state constitution in Art 1, Sec 16. Second, Amicus answers the Court’s second question presented only as to Art 1, Sec 16 with a Michigan-specific focus. Our state constitution bans the mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole for every emerging adult convicted of any first-degree murder that occurs without any individualized inquiry into the impact of that person’s youth and immaturity, the young person’s role in the crime or the nature of the offense, or any other mitigating circumstances.

Summary of Argument

Question 1: Retroactive Changes in Law under MCR 6.502(G)(2)

Amicus CDAM contends that Poole's motion for relief from judgment qualifies as "based on a retroactive change in law" under MCR 6.502(G)(2). This argument is supported by:

• The plain language of the provision

• The interpretation of related provisions in MCR 6.502(G)

• The purpose of MCR 6.502(G)

• Established court practice

Alternatively, Amicus suggests a broader definition of "retroactive" for state law purposes if the Court adopts a restrictive interpretation of "based on" in MCR 6.502(G).

Question 2: Constitutional Protections for Emerging Adults

Amicus provides historical context for the protections afforded by Article 1, Section 16 of the Michigan Constitution.

Regarding the Court's second question, Amicus argues that the Michigan Constitution prohibits mandatory life sentences without parole for emerging adults convicted of first-degree murder. This prohibition is based on the recognition that individualized assessments of youth, immaturity, and mitigating circumstances are essential in such cases.

Summary of Argument

Question 1: Is Poole's Motion Based on a Retroactive Change in Law?

Amicus CDAM believes that Poole's motion is based on a retroactive change in law because:

• The language of MCR 6.502(G)(2) clearly includes such changes.

• Other provisions in MCR 6.502(G) support this interpretation.

• MCR 6.502(G) is intended to address retroactive changes in law.

• Courts have previously recognized similar changes as retroactive.

Alternatively, if the Court chooses a narrower definition of "based on," Amicus CDAM suggests a broader definition of "retroactive" for state law.

Question 2: Does Michigan's Constitution Protect Emerging Adults from Mandatory Life Sentences?

Amicus CDAM provides historical context for the protection of rights under Article 1, Section 16 of the Michigan Constitution.

Regarding Article 1, Section 16 specifically, Amicus CDAM argues that the Michigan Constitution prohibits mandatory life sentences without parole for emerging adults (those under 18) convicted of first-degree murder. This is because such sentences do not consider the unique circumstances of youth, such as:

• Immaturity

• Role in the crime

• Nature of the offense

• Mitigating factors

Summary of Argument

Question 1: Should a change in the law allow for a new trial?

Amicus believes that when the law changes, people who were sentenced under the old law should be able to ask for a new trial. They argue that the rules for asking for a new trial should be interpreted broadly to allow for this.

Question 2: Does the Michigan Constitution protect young people from life sentences without parole?

Amicus CDAM also argues that the Michigan Constitution protects young people from being sentenced to life in prison without parole without considering their age and other factors. They believe that every young person who commits murder should have a chance to show that they deserve a lesser sentence.

Summary of Argument

Amicus CDAM is a group that helps the court with legal questions. They answered two questions from the court:

Question 1: What does "based on a retroactive change in law" mean?

The writers of this brief say that Poole's request for help is "based on a retroactive change in law" because:

• The words in the rule say so.

• Other rules use the same words in a similar way.

• The rule is meant to help when the law changes.

• Courts have used the rule this way before.

Question 2: Does Michigan's constitution protect young people from being sentenced to life in prison without parole?

Amicus CDAM says yes, Michigan's constitution does protect young people. They explain that:

• Michigan's constitution has a special rule about protecting people's rights.

• The rule says that young people can't be sentenced to life in prison without parole without a judge looking at their age, their role in the crime, and other things that might make their sentence less harsh.