Summary of Argument

The Petitioner-Appellant [hereinafter “Petitioner”] raises one issue on appeal of the denial of her writ of habeas corpus: whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when he conceded the voluntariness of Petitioner’s confession. Specifically, Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective because he conceded Petitioner’s claim, after first advancing it in a suppression motion, that Article 1, § 8 of the Connecticut Constitution mandates suppression of the Petitioner’s confession because police failed to advise Petitioner, who was then 14 years of age, that she would be prosecuted in adult court as an adult offender.

Amicus urges the Court to find that the state constitution requires that 14-year-old youth be so warned prior to interrogation, because the developmental and neurobiological differences between adults and minors demonstrate that minors require greater due process protections to ensure the voluntariness of their confessions. Scholarship on adolescent development in the realms of cognition and decision-making, as well as emerging research on the structure of the teenage brain, establish that adolescents, particularly younger adolescents such as Petitioner, are at a disadvantage in the interrogation setting as compared to adults. Courts have consistently relied on research regarding the developmental differences of youth in determining the scope and breadth of their constitutional rights, the most recent example being the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Roper v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183 (2005). The Simmons’ holding that the United States Constitution prohibits execution of juvenile offenders is based in part on research demonstrating the developmental differences of youth that make them less culpable for their criminal conduct than adults. Id. at 1195-96. Amicus presents for this court’s consideration research on the developmental and neurobiological characteristics of adolescents that bears directly on the question before the Court in this appeal.

Summary of Argument

The Petitioner argues that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by conceding the voluntariness of her confession. The basis of this claim is Article 1, § 8 of the Connecticut Constitution, which Petitioner contends mandates the suppression of confessions obtained from 14-year-old juveniles who are not informed that they will be prosecuted as adults.

This amicus brief supports the Petitioner's argument, asserting that the developmental and neurobiological differences between juveniles and adults necessitate enhanced due process protections for minors during interrogations.

Research on adolescent cognition and decision-making indicates that juveniles are disadvantaged in interrogation settings compared to adults. Their underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, responsible for executive functions such as planning and impulse control, makes them more susceptible to coercion and impulsive responses.

Emerging research on the teenage brain reveals structural differences that contribute to the cognitive and behavioral differences observed in adolescents. The limbic system, responsible for emotional processing, is more active in juveniles, while the prefrontal cortex is still developing. This imbalance can lead to heightened emotional reactivity and difficulty in regulating impulses.

Courts have recognized the developmental differences of juveniles in determining their constitutional rights. In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court held that the execution of juvenile offenders violates the Eighth Amendment, citing research on their reduced culpability due to their immature judgment and susceptibility to peer pressure.

The amicus brief argues that the Connecticut Constitution requires the suppression of confessions obtained from 14-year-old juveniles who are not informed of their potential prosecution as adults. This requirement is supported by scientific evidence demonstrating the unique vulnerabilities of adolescents in the interrogation context.

Summary of Argument

The petitioner claims that her lawyer was ineffective because he did not argue that her confession should have been suppressed (thrown out) under Connecticut law. The law requires that 14-year-olds be informed that they will be tried as adults before they can be questioned by police. The petitioner argues that her lawyer should have made this argument to protect her rights.

This brief argues that the Connecticut constitution should require this warning for 14-year-olds. They present research on the differences between the brains and decision-making abilities of adults and minors. This research shows that minors, especially younger ones like the petitioner, are more vulnerable during police interrogations.

Courts have often used research on youth development to determine their constitutional rights. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in Roper v. Simmons that it is unconstitutional to execute juvenile offenders. This decision was based in part on research showing that juveniles are less responsible for their actions than adults.

The amicus group argues that the same research should be considered in this case to protect the rights of minors during police interrogations.

Summary of Argument

The person who filed the appeal (Petitioner) is arguing that her lawyer was not effective.

The Petitioner believes her lawyer should have argued that her confession should not have been allowed in court. She was 14 when she confessed, and she argues that the police should have told her that she would be tried as an adult. She believes that because she is a minor, she needed more protection to make sure her confession was given freely.

Amicus (a group that supports the Petitioner) argues that research shows that teenagers are different from adults in how they think and make decisions. They also have different brain structures. Because of these differences, Amicus believes that teenagers need more protection when they are being questioned by police.

The Petitioner and Amicus point to a Supreme Court case called Roper v. Simmons that said teenagers who commit crimes are less responsible for their actions than adults. They argue that this same reasoning should apply to confessions, and that teenagers should be given more protection to ensure that their confessions are voluntary.

Summary of Argument

The petitioner (the person arguing their case) is arguing that her lawyer did not do a good job in defending her. When she was 14, she confessed to a crime. Now, she's saying her confession should not count because the police didn't tell her that she would be treated like an adult in court.

This brief states that 14-year-olds are different from adults. Their brains are still growing, and they don't always make good decisions. So, they need more protection when they're talking to the police. The police should have told the girl that she would be treated like an adult. If they had, she might not have confessed. They're asking the court to say that her confession shouldn't be used against her because it wasn't fair.