Summary of Argument

Prosecutors’ on-the-ground experience shows that Miller established a rule that is fundamentally distinct from any rule deemed to be “substantive” under Teague. For the changes in the law this Court previously has deemed substantive, few logistical difficulties have followed from their retroactive application. In those cases, postconviction courts simply have had to vacate certain convictions or reduce certain sentences to the maximum sentence authorized by law. Miller is different. It requires a fact-intensive hearing and a judgment call by the sentencing judge. Prosecutors have found that for prosecutions first commenced after this Court decided Miller, these hearings have worked well. That has not been true when courts have proceeded with Miller hearings in postconviction cases, years after the defendant was first tried. Contrary to the suggestions by the amici who support Montgomery, the postconviction hearings pose substantial difficulties to all parties, create significant risks of inaccurate results, and undermine finality in a way that is contrary to the values underlying this Court’s precedents.

The record at postconviction Miller hearings has been a particular problem. In new prosecutions, both sides have full incentives to develop the record relevant to sentencing, and both sides have the capacity to do so, given that the crime occurred relatively recently and the defendant is still young. But in postconviction proceedings, neither side may have had an incentive to develop that record, and it is difficult to assemble after the fact. Because many years often will have passed since the offender’s crime, the judge typically will be different from the judge who presided over the defendant’s trial, and thus unable to utilize trial experience to help make the appropriate sentencing determination. Offenders may have an incentive to manufacture false arguments that, due to the passage of time, prosecutors cannot easily rebut. Advocacy groups also may engage in public relations campaigns that fail to convey full and accurate facts, thus undermining public confidence when judges conclude that, in light of all the circumstances, the offender’s original sentence of life without parole remains appropriate.

Prosecutors’ experience also suggests, and the amici who have submitted briefs on behalf of Montgomery have confirmed, that retroactive application of the Miller rule is not at all about ensuring that the same rules apply to offenders in both new prosecutions and postconviction review. The Miller hearing at new prosecutions focuses on the defendant’s characteristics at the time of the crime and the trial. Offenders who seek retroactive application of Miller almost always ask the court to make a different inquiry. They ask courts to focus on what has happened in the years after they committed their crime, while they were in prison. That disparity is a problem in and of itself, and prosecutors have had substantial concerns that offenders have manufactured false arguments about their purported rehabilitation.

Prosecutors have witnessed the uniquely severe toll postconviction Miller hearings have had on victims’ families. In new prosecutions, families understand at the outset that, upon a finding of guilt, the judge will be choosing between a sentence of life without parole and one that involves some possibility of release. They also know that their participation in the proceedings may be essential. But in postconviction cases, victims’ families already have been told that the court had rendered a final judgment. They have been told that the defendant will never be released. They have been told that they can move on with their lives. It is difficult to overstate the pain victims’ families have suffered when they have learned that these cases, and their emotional wounds, may be reopened.

Miller’s retroactive application thus implicates numerous logistical difficulties that do not normally attend to the retroactive application of rules this Court previously has deemed “substantive” under Teague. Their presence suggests that the Miller rule does not fall within that category.

Summary of Argument

Prosecutors' practical experience demonstrates that the rule established in Miller v. Alabama differs significantly from previous rules considered "substantive" under the Teague doctrine. While retroactive application of such rules typically involves straightforward adjustments to convictions or sentences, Miller mandates individualized hearings and discretionary judgments by sentencing judges.

Postconviction Miller hearings present unique challenges:

• Evidentiary Deficiencies: Unlike new prosecutions where both parties have incentives and resources to develop a comprehensive sentencing record, postconviction proceedings often lack such evidence due to the passage of time and diminished incentives.

• Judicial Unfamiliarity: Sentencing judges in postconviction hearings may differ from those who presided over the original trials, lacking the benefit of trial experience in making sentencing determinations.

• Falsehoods and Advocacy Bias: Offenders may fabricate arguments that are difficult for prosecutors to refute due to the elapsed time. Advocacy groups may engage in public relations campaigns that distort facts and undermine public trust in judicial decisions.

Moreover, retroactive application of Miller diverges from its purpose in new prosecutions. While new hearings focus on the defendant's characteristics at the time of the crime, postconviction hearings often shift the inquiry to post-incarceration conduct. This disparity raises concerns about manufactured evidence of rehabilitation.

Impact on Victims' Families: Postconviction Miller hearings inflict significant emotional distress on victims' families who were previously assured of the finality of the sentence. The reopening of these cases reopens emotional wounds and disrupts their ability to move forward.

In conclusion, the logistical difficulties and concerns associated with postconviction Miller hearings suggest that the Miller rule does not fall within the category of "substantive" rules typically subject to retroactive application under Teague.

Summary of Argument

Prosecutors argue that the Miller rule, which prohibits mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles, should not be applied retroactively to cases that have already been decided. They have several reasons for this:

Logistical Difficulties

• Incomplete Records: In old cases, it can be hard to find all the information needed to make a fair sentencing decision.

• Different Judges: The judge who hears the post-conviction hearing may not have presided over the original trial and may not have the same understanding of the case.

• False Arguments: Defendants may make up false claims about their rehabilitation, which can be difficult for prosecutors to disprove.

• Public Relations Campaigns: Advocacy groups may spread inaccurate information, which can make it harder for judges to make impartial decisions.

Different Focus

• New Prosecutions: Miller hearings focus on the defendant's behavior at the time of the crime.

• Post-Conviction Hearings: Defendants often ask courts to consider their behavior in prison, which can lead to unfair comparisons.

Impact on Victims' Families

• Emotional Toll: Post-conviction hearings can reopen old wounds for victims' families who were told that the case was closed.

Prosecutors believe that these difficulties make the Miller rule different from other rules that have been applied retroactively. They argue that it should not be applied to cases that have already been decided.

Summary of Argument

The Miller rule states that it's unconstitutional to automatically sentence young offenders to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Instead, judges must consider the offender's age and other factors before making a sentencing decision.

Problems with Applying the Rule to Old Cases

Applying the Miller rule to cases that were already decided years ago has been challenging for several reasons:

• Missing Information: In old cases, it can be difficult to gather all the necessary information about the offender's background and behavior at the time of the crime.

• Different Judges: The judge who hears the case after the Miller rule is applied may not be the same one who originally sentenced the offender. This can make it harder to make a fair decision.

• False Claims: Offenders may try to make up stories about their rehabilitation in prison to get a lighter sentence.

• Emotional Toll on Victims' Families: Reopening old cases can be very painful for the families of victims who were told that the offender would never be released.

Why the Miller Rule is Different

Unlike other rules that have been applied to old cases, the Miller rule requires a lot of information and a judgment call by the judge. This makes it much more difficult to apply retroactively.

Conclusion

The challenges of applying the Miller rule to old cases suggest that it may not be appropriate to do so. It's important to consider the potential problems and ensure that justice is served for both offenders and victims.

Summary of Argument

When people are found guilty of a crime, they usually get a sentence, like going to jail for a certain number of years. But sometimes, the judge decides that the person should spend the rest of their life in jail without ever getting out. This is called "life without parole."

A few years ago, the court decided that it's not fair to give life without parole to kids who commit crimes. They said that judges need to have a special hearing called a "Miller hearing" to decide if the kid should get that sentence.

In new cases, where the crime just happened, these hearings work well. Both sides can tell the judge about the kid and the crime. But when these hearings happen years after the crime, it's much harder.

It's hard to find information about what happened so long ago. The judge might be different from the one who heard the original case. The kid might make up stories that are hard to prove wrong. And groups might try to make the public think the kid should get out, even if it's not true.

Also, it's really hard on the families of the people who were hurt by the crime. They thought the case was over and that the person who hurt their loved one would never get out of jail. But now, they have to go through everything again.

So, the Miller hearings are different from other court cases. They're harder to do fairly and they can hurt people who have already been through a lot.