Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center et al., Supporting Appellee Songster
Marsha L. Levick
Emily C. Keller
Leigh M. Skipper
Lisa B. Freeland
Bradley S. Bridge
SummaryOriginal

Summary

Miller's rule, being substantive and watershed, applies retroactively, so Songster's sentence must be reconsidered as it violates the Eighth Amendment.

Share Resource

2014 | State Juristiction

Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center et al., Supporting Appellee Songster

Keywords juvenile offender; murder; homicide; retroactivity; resentence; Miller; mandatory life without parole; mandatory LWOP; Eighth Amendment (U.S.); child; adolescent development; Teague; watershed rule
image

Summary of Argument

In Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), the United States Supreme Court held that the mandatory imposition of sentences of life without the possibility of parole on juvenile offenders convicted of murder is unconstitutional. At the time Appellee Songster was sentenced for crimes he committed as a juvenile, state law mandated a life without parole sentence for his homicide offense. As applied to juvenile offenders, this mandatory scheme is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller.

Miller applies retroactively to Appellee. As argued in Appellee’s brief at 16- 30, Miller announced a substantive rule, which pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent applies retroactively. Further, even assuming the rule is procedural, Miller is a watershed rule of criminal procedure that applies retroactively. Moreover, Miller must be applied retroactively because, once the Court determines that a punishment is cruel and unusual when imposed on a child, any continuing imposition of that sentence is itself a violation of the Eighth Amendment; the date upon which a mandatory life without parole sentence is imposed cannot convert it into a constitutional sentence.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama (2012) determined that mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles convicted of murder are unconstitutional. The state law under which Appellee Songster was sentenced, at the time, mandated a life without parole sentence for homicide. The application of this mandatory scheme to juvenile offenders is unconstitutional based on the ruling in Miller.

The Miller ruling applies retroactively to Appellee Songster. Miller is a substantive rule, which based on Supreme Court precedent, applies retroactively. Even if Miller is considered a procedural rule, it is a watershed rule of criminal procedure that applies retroactively. Applying Miller retroactively is essential because a punishment deemed cruel and unusual when imposed on a child remains a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The timing of the imposition of a mandatory life without parole sentence does not alter its unconstitutionality.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional. This ruling applies to Appellee Songster, who was sentenced under a state law requiring such sentences for homicide offenses committed as a juvenile.

The Miller decision is retroactive, meaning it applies to cases like Songster's that occurred before the ruling. This is because Miller established a substantive rule, which according to Supreme Court precedent is retroactive. Additionally, even if considered procedural, Miller is a landmark decision that requires retroactive application. Furthermore, applying Miller retroactively is essential because imposing a punishment deemed unconstitutional for juveniles is itself a violation of the Eighth Amendment, regardless of the date of the sentencing.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that automatically giving life in prison without the possibility of parole to young people convicted of murder is against the Constitution. This decision is important because it affects a law in the state where the Appellee (the person appealing the case) was sentenced. At the time of the Appellee’s sentencing, the state law said that anyone found guilty of murder as a young person would automatically get life in prison without parole. This law is now considered unconstitutional due to Miller.

Because of Miller, this decision applies to the Appellee's case, even though the sentence was given before Miller was decided. This is because Miller is considered a major change in the law that applies to past cases. Furthermore, the Court has said that once a punishment is determined to be cruel and unusual for children, continuing to use that punishment is also against the Constitution. The date of the sentence does not change whether or not it is constitutional.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court said that it is not fair to give a child a life sentence in prison without the chance of getting out. This was a big case called Miller v. Alabama. A young person named Songster was given a life sentence without the chance of getting out, but this is not allowed under the law because of the Miller case.

The Supreme Court said this rule applies to all cases, even those from the past, and that means Songster should have a chance to get out of prison someday. It is unfair for a person to be stuck in prison forever just because they were a child when they did something wrong.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, Federal Public and Community Defender Organizations of the Pennsylvania Western, Middle, and Eastern Districts, and the Defender Association of Philadelphia Supporting Appellee, Songster v. Beard, No. 12-3941 (3d Cir. Oct. 30, 2014).

    Highlights

      Share your Highlights