Summary of Argument

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that youth matters in criminal sentencing; Mr. Malvo has never had a hearing that accounts for his youth. The imposition of Mr. Malvo’s sentence took place within a racist criminal legal system. The historical origins of sentencing law in Maryland have contributed to the substantial racial disparities in today’s carceral population; the lack of safeguards in sentencing further exacerbates this disparity. Mr. Malvo’s sentence is unconstitutional under Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and this constitutional infirmity cannot be cured by any illusory remedy set forth by the Juvenile Restoration Act (JUVRA). Mr. Malvo must be resentenced.

Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized the mitigating factor of youth in criminal sentencing, emphasizing the diminished culpability and greater potential for rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. However, in the case of Lee Boyd Malvo, the failure to consider his youth at the time of sentencing raises concerns about the fairness and constitutionality of his punishment.

Malvo's sentence was imposed amidst a criminal justice system characterized by systemic racism. Historical biases and discriminatory practices in sentencing laws have disproportionately impacted communities of color, leading to significant racial disparities in the incarcerated population. The absence of adequate safeguards to mitigate these disparities further compounds the problem.

Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Malvo's sentence, which fails to account for his youth and the racial biases inherent in the criminal justice system, violates this constitutional provision. The Juvenile Restoration Act (JUVRA) cannot retroactively remedy this constitutional infirmity, necessitating a resentencing that fully considers these mitigating factors.

Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized the importance of considering a defendant's youth when imposing criminal sentences. However, in the case of Lee Boyd Malvo, the court failed to account for his age at the time of the crimes.

Malvo's sentence was imposed within a criminal justice system that has been historically biased against people of color. The origins of sentencing laws in Maryland have played a significant role in creating the racial disparities that exist in the state's prison population today. The lack of safeguards in the sentencing process further compounds these disparities.

Under Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Malvo's sentence is unconstitutional because it fails to consider his youth and the systemic racism within the criminal justice system. The Juvenile Restoration Act (JUVRA) does not provide an adequate remedy for this constitutional violation. Therefore, Malvo's sentence must be vacated and he must be resentenced in a manner that takes into account these important factors.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme court of the US has said that being young should be considered when sentencing someone for a crime. But Lee Boyd Malvo, who was a teenager when he committed crimes, never got a hearing where his age was taken into account.

There's also a problem with racism in the criminal justice system. In Maryland, where Malvo was sentenced, there's a long history of laws that have led to more people of color being in prison. And there aren't enough rules to protect against this unfairness.

Malvo's sentence goes against a part of Maryland's constitution that protects people's rights. The law that was supposed to fix this problem doesn't actually do enough. So, Malvo needs to be sentenced again, this time with his age and the issue of racism in mind.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme court of the United States has said that kids should be treated differently than adults when they get in trouble with the law. But there's a man named Mr. Malvo who was a kid when he did something wrong, and he never got a chance to have his age taken into account.

Also, the laws about punishment in Maryland have a long history of being unfair to black people. This has led to a lot of black people being in jail, even though there are not as many black people in Maryland as white people.

Mr. Malvo's punishment is not fair because it doesn't follow a special rule in Maryland that says kids should be treated differently. The new law called JUVRA can't fix this problem. So, Mr. Malvo needs to be given a new punishment that is fair for a kid.