Brief of Amici Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, TeamChild, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
Robert S. Chang
Melissa Lee
Jessica Levin
Sara Zier
Mark Middaugh
SummaryOriginal

Summary

The adultification of Black children contributes to racial disparities in decline and sentencing outcomes for Black youth.

Share Resource

2022 | State Juristiction

Brief of Amici Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, TeamChild, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner

Keywords sentencing; racial disparity; children of color; adultification; adultification; Black youth; race
Screenshot 2024-07-01 at 11.01.54 AM

Summary of Article

This case presents the opportunity to account for adultification bias that operates against children of color in both the decline and sentencing contexts. Addressing how race rendered Keonte’s decline and sentencing proceedings unconstitutional on collateral review is appropriate under RAP 16.4(c)(2). The record declining him to adult court demonstrates the court perceived him as older and more culpable than the facts established. And the record of his Houston-Sconiers sentencing hearing is deficient such that it is impossible to rule out the possibility that Keonte’s race contributed to his lengthy sentence.

Regarding decline, this Court should recognize that adultification bias can tip the scales towards decline like it did for Keonte. It should instruct trial courts to be mindful of adultification bias in the discretionary decline context, as it did in the sentencing context in In re Pers. Restraint of Miller, 21 Wn. App. 2d 257, 505 P.3d 585 (2022), to ensure that courts account for juvenile brain science in applying the Kent factors.

In the sentencing context, this Court should recognize a presumption of a mitigated sentence under article I, section 14 for children prosecuted in adult court. This presumption would mitigate adultification bias and anchor bias, where judges remain tethered to harsh SRA sentences. This Court should also require written Houston-Sconiers findings so appellate courts can determine compliance with Houston-Sconiers and discern whether race played an impermissible role.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Article

This case presents an opportunity to examine adultification bias, a phenomenon that disproportionately affects children of color in the context of juvenile delinquency proceedings and sentencing. The court should consider whether Keonte's case exemplifies this bias, particularly during his transfer to adult court and his subsequent sentencing.

The court should recognize that adultification bias may have influenced the decision to transfer Keonte to adult court, where he was perceived as older and more culpable than the evidence warranted. The court should also scrutinize the sentencing proceedings, as the record lacks sufficient information to rule out the possibility that racial bias contributed to his lengthy sentence.

To address this issue, the court should acknowledge the potential for adultification bias in juvenile delinquency cases, emphasizing the importance of considering juvenile brain development and applying the Kent factors accordingly. In the sentencing context, a presumption of a mitigated sentence should be established for children prosecuted in adult court, mitigating the effects of both adultification bias and anchoring bias, which can lead to disproportionately harsh sentences. Additionally, the court should require written Houston-Sconiers findings to ensure compliance with relevant legal standards and to facilitate appellate review of potential racial bias.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Article

This case presents the opportunity to explore the impact of adultification bias, a phenomenon that disproportionately affects children of color in both juvenile justice decline and adult court sentencing. The court's decision to decline Keonte to adult court, as well as the sentencing hearing, raise concerns about the influence of racial bias. This case provides a platform to argue that Keonte's decline and sentencing proceedings were unconstitutional based on the concept of adultification bias.

Regarding the decline, this case urges the court to acknowledge the potential for adultification bias to influence decisions regarding juvenile court decline. The court should guide trial courts to be cognizant of this bias and its implications for juvenile justice proceedings. This guidance aligns with recent developments in juvenile justice, emphasizing the need to consider the unique developmental characteristics of youth when applying the Kent factors.

In the sentencing context, this case advocates for a presumption of mitigated sentences for children prosecuted as adults under article I, section 14 of the Constitution. This presumption aims to mitigate adultification bias and anchor bias, both of which can contribute to harsher sentences for children of color. The case also recommends that courts be required to issue written findings following Houston-Sconiers hearings to ensure compliance and facilitate appellate review. This step aims to provide a clearer picture of the role race may have played in the sentencing decision.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Article

This case raises concerns about how racism can unfairly influence how the justice system treats young people of color. The case focuses on Keonte, a young person of color, who was transferred to adult court and sentenced to a long prison term. The argument is that the courts made decisions based on biased assumptions about Keonte's maturity and culpability, rather than on the facts of the case.

The document argues that the court should acknowledge that racism can lead to unfair decisions when young people of color are transferred to adult court. This means that judges should be aware of this bias and make sure they consider the unique developmental stages of young people when making these decisions.

The document also argues that the court should acknowledge that young people of color who are tried as adults are more likely to receive harsh sentences. To address this, the court should create a presumption that these young people should receive shorter sentences. The document also recommends that courts provide detailed written explanations for sentencing decisions, so that appellate courts can review the decisions and ensure fairness.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Article

This article talks about how young people of color are treated unfairly in the justice system. It says that the court system sometimes sees them as older and more guilty than they really are. This is called "adultification bias".

The article points out that this bias happened to a young man named Keonte. The court decided he should be tried as an adult, even though he wasn't really as old or responsible as they thought. The article says this decision was wrong because it didn't consider how young brains work.

The article also says that Keonte's sentence was too long, and that his race might have played a part in that. It argues that the court should make sure that judges are aware of adultification bias when they decide how long to sentence young people. It also suggests that the court should require judges to write down their reasons for the sentences they give so that other courts can make sure they are fair.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Brief of Amici Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, TeamChild, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner, In re Pers. Restraint of Keonte Smith, No. 56917-5-II (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2022).

    Highlights

      Share your Highlights