Summary of Argument

"No one, not criminal defendants, not the judicial system, not society as a whole is benefited by a judgment providing that a man shall tentatively go to jail today, but tomorrow and every day thereafter his continued incarceration shall be subject to fresh litigation on issues already resolved.” Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 691 (1971)(Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Some 55 years ago, Petitioner Henry Montgomery, who was then 17 years old, shot East Baton Rouge Deputy Sheriff Charles Hurt to death. Notwithstanding the finality of his resulting conviction and the rejection of several petitions for collateral relief, he now seeks relief from his sentence relying on this Court’s three-year old ruling in Miller v. Alabama. But making Miller retroactive will not make Montgomery’s murder of Deputy Hurt any less a crime. Nor does it enhance that truth finding function of the trial process

In addition, making Miller retroactive will deprive surviving family members of the finality that they have had for years. When a juvenile murderer killed their loved one, the surviving members were traumatized. Reopening these cases for resentencing will retraumatize them, forcing them to relive the events that traumatized them in the first instance. These surviving family members deserve no less respect than the juvenile murderers.

Summary of Argument

In the seminal case of Mackey v. United States (1971), Justice Harlan emphasized the societal importance of finality in criminal judgments, arguing that repeated litigation on resolved issues undermines the integrity of the judicial system and provides no benefit to defendants, the courts, or society. This principle has been challenged in recent years by the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012), which held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional.

Montgomery's Case and the Retroactivity of Miller

Henry Montgomery, convicted of murder at age 17, seeks relief from his sentence based on Miller. However, the retroactive application of Miller would not alter the fact that Montgomery committed a heinous crime. Moreover, it would undermine the principle of finality that has provided closure to the victim's family.

Impact on Surviving Family Members

Retroactively applying Miller would retraumatize surviving family members by forcing them to relive the traumatic events that led to their loved one's death. The respect and consideration owed to these individuals should not be overshadowed by the claims of juvenile offenders.

Conclusion

While the Supreme Court's decision in Miller recognized the unique circumstances of juvenile offenders, the retroactive application of this ruling must be carefully considered in light of the societal value of finality in criminal judgments and the potential harm it could inflict on surviving family members.

Summary of Argument

In the 1971 case of Mackey v. United States, Justice Harlan emphasized that criminal judgments should provide a sense of finality. He argued that constantly revisiting sentences does not benefit anyone involved.

Montgomery's Case

Henry Montgomery was convicted of murder at age 17. Despite the finality of his conviction, he is now seeking a reduced sentence based on a recent Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama. However, it's important to note that:

• Montgomery's crime remains a serious offense, regardless of the Miller ruling.

• Reopening his case for resentencing would retraumatize the victim's family.

The Value of Finality

Finality in criminal sentencing is crucial because it:

• Provides closure for victims' families, allowing them to move on from the trauma.

• Ensures that the justice system is not constantly relitigating past cases.

• Maintains the integrity of the trial process, where issues are resolved and judgments are made.

In conclusion, while it's important to consider new legal developments, it's equally important to preserve the finality of criminal judgments and protect the interests of victims and their families.

Summary of Argument

Henry Montgomery was 17 when he killed a police officer. He was found guilty and has been in jail for many years. Now, he wants to get out of jail because of a new rule that says young people shouldn't get such long sentences.

Why Making the Rule Retroactive is a Bad Idea:

• It doesn't change the fact that Montgomery killed someone.

• It would hurt the family of the police officer he killed. They have already been through a lot, and it would be unfair to make them go through it again.

It's important to have finality in criminal cases. This means that once a person is found guilty, they should serve their sentence without being able to keep arguing about it. This is fair to the victims and their families, and it helps society move on.

Summary of Argument

A long time ago, a 17-year-old named Henry Montgomery killed a police officer. He was found guilty and has been in jail ever since. Now, he wants to get out of jail because of a new rule that says young people who commit crimes should get shorter sentences.

But some people think that's not fair. They say:

• It won't change the fact that Montgomery killed someone.

• It will hurt the family of the police officer he killed. They will have to go through the pain of the trial all over again.

They believe that once a person is found guilty, their sentence should stay the same. They think it's important for the families of victims to have peace and know that the person who hurt their loved one is being punished.