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 jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized the significance of youth as a mitigating factor in criminal sentencing. However, in the case of Lee Boyd Malvo, the failure to conduct a hearing that adequately considered his youthfulness raises concerns about the fairness of his sentence.

Moreover, the imposition of Malvo's sentence occurred within the context of a criminal justice system characterized by systemic racism. Historical antecedents of sentencing laws in Maryland have played a role in perpetuating racial disparities in the state's incarcerated population. The absence of sufficient safeguards in sentencing practices further compounds these disparities.

Under Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Malvo's sentence is deemed unconstitutional. The Juvenile Restoration Act (JUVRA) does not provide an adequate remedy for this constitutional violation. Therefore, it is imperative that Malvo be resentenced in a manner that fully accounts for his youth, the systemic racism inherent in the criminal justice system, and the protections afforded by the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

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 highest court in 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 serious 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 unfairly targeted Black people. This has led to a lot of Black people being in prison today. And because there aren't enough rules to protect people during sentencing, this problem gets even worse.

Malvo's sentence goes against a rule in Maryland's constitution that protects people's rights. Even though there's a new law called JUVRA that's supposed to help young offenders, it can't fix the problems with Malvo's sentence.

So, Malvo needs to be sentenced again, and this time his age and the impact of racism should be considered.

Summary of Argument

The highest court in the United States says 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 didn't get a fair hearing because he was young.

Also, the laws in Maryland, where Mr. Malvo was sentenced, have a history of being unfair to people of color. This has led to a lot of people of color being in jail. And the way sentences are given out doesn't help to fix this problem.

Mr. Malvo's sentence is against the rules of Maryland, and there's no way to make it right under the new law that's supposed to help kids. So, Mr. Malvo needs to be given a new sentence that's fair for a kid.