Summary of Argument

Seven days cost Petitioner Jonas Nelson the opportunity for a chance at parole. Jonas committed the offense for which he was convicted seven days after his 18th birthday. Had Jonas been just seven days younger, he would not have been eligible for a sentence of mandatory life without parole under this Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama. But because those seven days had passed, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that he was not entitled to receive the protections of Miller, including the opportunity to present mitigating evidence bearing upon his family’s troubled circumstances, his psychological condition, and the history of abuse at the hands of his father.

The Court’s mandate in Miller was born out of one fundamental principle: youth matters. This Court repeatedly has announced that “youth matters” for purposes of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. That judgment is not only the product of parental wisdom; it is a conclusion built on modern science. Listening to the science, this Court has declared that young people are less morally culpable and more likely to be reformed.

In recent years, a division has grown in the lower courts about the application of Miller to young adults who have passed the age of 18. Based on current science and the principle that “youth matters,” state and federal courts have extended Miller to young adults, including 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds. But other courts, like the Minnesota Supreme Court below, have interpreted this Court’s precedents as establishing a bright-line rule, one which strips away the rights guaranteed by Miller the moment the clock strikes midnight on the juvenile’s 18th birthday. Now is the time for the Court to resolve the divide and answer the question whether Miller extends to barely chronological adults.

The Miller protections should extend, at a minimum, to young adults ages 18, 19, and 20. First, it is not only society that recognizes that youth continues past the age of 18; the latest scientific findings confirm that the brain continues to mature in key areas of decision-making well into our twenties. Second, extending Miller to young adults ages 18 to 20 will curb the unfair allocation of rights between young-adult defendants who possess mitigating qualities of youth and juvenile defendants who are afforded the chance to present evidence as to those qualities. Lastly, extending Miller in this way will not place any significant burden on the courts.

The Court should grant certiorari and extend Miller, at the very least, to young adults who committed an offense at ages 18, 19, or 20 years old.

Summary of Argument

Jonas Nelson's case highlights a legal disparity that arises when individuals commit crimes shortly after their 18th birthdays. Nelson's conviction occurred seven days after his milestone birthday, rendering him ineligible for the protections afforded to juveniles under Miller v. Alabama, which prohibits mandatory life without parole sentences for minors. This discrepancy has sparked a debate in lower courts regarding the applicability of Miller to young adults.

Miller's premise is rooted in the recognition that youth is a mitigating factor deserving of consideration in sentencing. This principle is supported not only by societal norms but also by scientific evidence. Neuroscience has established that individuals in their late teens and early twenties exhibit diminished moral culpability and a greater capacity for rehabilitation due to ongoing brain development.

A divergence has emerged in court rulings on the extension of Miller to young adults. Some courts have recognized the continuing relevance of youth beyond the age of 18 and extended Miller's protections to individuals up to 20 years old. However, others, such as the Minnesota Supreme Court in Nelson's case, adhere to a strict chronological cutoff at 18. This disparity calls for the Supreme Court to provide clarity on the issue.

The argument for extending Miller to young adults aged 18-20 rests on several grounds. Firstly, the scientific understanding of brain development indicates that key decision-making abilities continue to mature well into adulthood. Secondly, it would address the inequity in sentencing outcomes between young adults with mitigating factors and juveniles who are given the opportunity to present such evidence. Finally, the extension would not impose a significant administrative burden on the courts.

In conclusion, the extension of Miller v. Alabama protections to young adults aged 18-20 is warranted based on both the principle that "youth matters" and the scientific evidence supporting the ongoing development of the brain during this period. This measure would ensure fairness and consistency in sentencing practices, recognizing the unique circumstances and potential for rehabilitation of young adults.

Summary of Argument

The case of Jonas Nelson highlights a legal issue: should young adults who commit crimes just after turning 18 be treated differently than those who are still minors? Nelson was sentenced to life without parole for an offense he committed seven days after his 18th birthday. If he had been younger, he would have been eligible for a more lenient sentence and the chance to prove that he deserved a second chance.

The Supreme Court has recognized that young people are different from adults. They are less responsible for their actions and more likely to change. Science backs this up, showing that the brain continues to develop into the early twenties.

Some courts have extended these protections to young adults, recognizing that the line between youth and adulthood is not always clear. However, others, like the Minnesota Supreme Court in Nelson's case, have ruled that once someone turns 18, they are no longer considered a juvenile.

This has created a divide in the legal system. Some young adults who commit crimes are given the opportunity to prove their worthiness for parole, while others are not, even if they were barely 18 at the time of the offense.

Extending the protections for juveniles to young adults up to age 20 would be consistent with scientific evidence and the principle that youth should be considered. It would also ensure fairness between young adults and juveniles who have committed similar crimes. Additionally, it would not significantly burden the courts.

The Supreme Court should consider whether young adults like Jonas Nelson deserve the same opportunities as juveniles to demonstrate that they can be rehabilitated and deserve a second chance.

Summary of Argument

Jonas Nelson missed out on a chance for parole because he was seven days too old. He committed a crime just after his 18th birthday. If he had been a week younger, he wouldn't have gotten a life sentence without parole. But because he was 18, he didn't get the same protections as younger kids.

The courts have said that age matters when it comes to punishments. Kids are different from adults. They're not as responsible for their actions, and they have a better chance of changing their lives. Science backs this up, showing that young people's brains are still developing.

Some courts have decided that these protections should apply to young adults up to age 20. But others, like the court in Jonas's case, say that once you turn 18, you're an adult and lose these rights.

There are good reasons to give young adults these protections. Their brains are still maturing, and they often come from difficult backgrounds that can affect their actions. Plus, it's not fair that some young adults get these protections while others don't just because of a few days' difference in age.

It wouldn't be hard for courts to extend these protections to young adults. It would just mean giving them a chance to prove that they deserve a second chance.

The court should step in and make sure that young adults like Jonas get the same protections as younger kids.

Summary of Argument

A teenager named Jonas is in prison for life because he committed a crime seven days after he turned 18. If he had been seven days younger, he would have had a chance to go free someday. That's because the court said that young people are different from adults.

Scientists have shown that young people's brains are still growing and changing. This means they don't always make good decisions and they are more likely to change for the better. Some courts have said that these rules should also apply to young adults who are 18, 19, or 20 years old. But other courts, like the one that sentenced Jonas, say that the rules only apply to people under 18.

Jonas believes that it's not fair that some young adults get a chance to prove they deserve a second chance while others don't. He also thinks it's not right that the courts aren't listening to the scientists. Jonas wants the highest court in the country to step in and say that young adults deserve the same protections as younger kids. He believes that if the court does this, it will help to make sure that everyone is treated fairly.