Summary of Argument

More than 50 years ago, this Court clearly established that children being questioned by police need “protection” in light of their “unequal footing” with interrogators. Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 54 (1962). The Court noted that an adolescent “is not equal to the police in knowledge and understanding” and will not know “how to protest his own interests” or get the benefit of his own constitutional rights during an interrogation. Id. The Court has also clarified that certain interrogation tactics, such as “‘paternal’ urgings” by officials, might sway adolescents into confessing, calling into question the trustworthiness of juvenile confessions. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 51-52 (1967). Courts therefore must exercise “the greatest care” to ensure that juvenile confessions are voluntary. Id. at 55.

This Court’s caution that constitutional standards must be calibrated to take adolescence into account permeates its jurisprudence. Indeed, this Court has been clear that “criminal procedure laws that fail to take defendants’ youthfulness into account at all would be flawed.” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 76 (2010); see also Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 473-74 (2012); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005). This Court has grounded its conclusions that youth merit distinctive treatment under the law not only in “common sense,” but also in scientific research showing that teenagers are more impulsive, more susceptible to coercion, less mature, and more capable of change than adults. See J.D.B. v. North Carolina 564 U.S. 261, 272-73, 280 (2011); Graham, 560 U.S. at68-69; see also Miller, 567 U.S. at 471-72; Roper, 543 U.S. at 569-70. And it has recognized that these traits are relevant in the context of police interrogations, where youth “lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to . . . avoid choices that could be detrimental to them.” J.D.B., 564 U.S. at 272.

This precedent places beyond dispute that the voluntariness inquiry requires meaningful evaluation of a juvenile’s age and developmental characteristics. By failing to give any consideration to Brendan Dassey’s age—much less exercise the special care required by these cases—the Wisconsin Court of Appeals violated clearly established law.

Summary of Argument

In its jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the need for special protections for juveniles during police interrogations. This stems from the understanding that adolescents possess inherent vulnerabilities that render them susceptible to coercion and undermine the voluntariness of their confessions.

Historical Precedent

In Gallegos v. Colorado (1962), the Court acknowledged the "unequal footing" between juveniles and interrogators, noting that adolescents lack the knowledge and maturity to safeguard their own interests. Similarly, in In re Gault (1967), the Court cautioned that certain interrogation tactics could unduly influence juveniles, casting doubt on the reliability of their confessions.

Adolescent Development and Criminal Procedure

The Court's recognition of juvenile vulnerabilities has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent cases, such as Graham v. Florida (2010), Miller v. Alabama (2012), and Roper v. Simmons (2005). These decisions have emphasized that criminal procedure laws must account for the unique developmental characteristics of youth.

Scientific Evidence

Scientific research has corroborated the Court's findings, demonstrating that teenagers exhibit greater impulsivity, susceptibility to coercion, immaturity, and capacity for change compared to adults. These traits are particularly relevant in the context of police interrogations, where juveniles may lack the judgment and experience to make informed decisions.

Voluntariness Inquiry and Age Consideration

Based on this precedent, the voluntariness inquiry in juvenile interrogation cases must meaningfully consider the suspect's age and developmental characteristics. In the case of Brendan Dassey, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals failed to do so, violating clearly established law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence mandates that courts exercise special care in evaluating the voluntariness of juvenile confessions. By neglecting to consider Brendan Dassey's age, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals contravened this fundamental principle, highlighting the crucial importance of age consideration in juvenile interrogations.

Summary of Argument

Over 50 years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that children need special protection during police interrogations because they are not on equal footing with adults. Children may not understand their rights or how to protect their interests. Certain interrogation tactics, such as "friendly" persuasion by authorities, can pressure children into confessing, even if the confessions are not true.

The Importance of Considering Age

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the age of a juvenile must be taken into account when evaluating the voluntariness of a confession. Studies have shown that teenagers are more impulsive, susceptible to pressure, and less mature than adults. These traits make them particularly vulnerable during police interrogations.

The Case of Brendan Dassey

In the case of Brendan Dassey, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals failed to consider his age when assessing the voluntariness of his confession. This violated established law, which requires courts to exercise great care in evaluating juvenile confessions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's precedent makes it clear that the voluntariness of a juvenile confession must be evaluated in light of the juvenile's age and developmental characteristics. Failure to do so can result in unreliable confessions and violate the rights of young people.

Summary of Argument

Over 50 years ago, the Supreme Court said that kids need special protection when being questioned by police. This is because kids aren't as smart or experienced as adults, and they might not know how to protect their rights.

The Court also said that police can't use certain tricks to get kids to confess, like being overly friendly or pushy. This is because kids are more likely to give in to pressure than adults.

Because of this, courts have to be really careful to make sure that kids' confessions are given freely and willingly.

The Supreme Court has said that laws need to take into account that kids are different from adults. They're more likely to act without thinking, give in to pressure, and change their minds.

These differences are especially important when it comes to police questioning. Kids might not have the experience or judgment to make good choices that won't hurt them.

So, when courts are deciding if a kid's confession is valid, they need to consider the kid's age and how they think and act. In a case involving a kid named Brendan Dassey, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals didn't do this, which is against the law.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court said that kids and teens need another adult in the room when they're talking to police. That's because kids don't know as much as police and might not understand their rights. The court said that some things police do may make kids confess to things they didn't do. So, courts have to be really careful to make sure that kids' confessions are real. The court also said that kids are different from adults. They might do things without thinking, listen to people more easily, and change their minds more often.

Because of this, when police question kids, they need to be extra careful. They need to think about how old the kid is and how they might be different from an adult. In this case, the court in Wisconsin didn't think about the kid's age when they said his confession was okay, which goes against what the Supreme Court said.