Memorandum of Amicus Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality in Support of Petition for Review
Robert S. Chang
Melissa R. Lee
Jessica Levin
SummaryOriginal

Summary

Children tried in adult court are presumed equally culpable to adults and are subjected to adult-equivalent punishment, but youth reduces culpability.

Share Resource

2019 | State Juristiction

Memorandum of Amicus Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality in Support of Petition for Review

Keywords presumption of mitigation; adult court; diminished culpability; transfers; children; youth; juvenile offenders; sentencing
Screenshot 2024-06-25 at 1.13.12 PM

Summary of Argument

Sebastian Gregg was 17 years old when he was charged, convicted, and sentenced for his crimes. Pet. for Review at 4. Without full consideration of Mr. Gregg’s particular circumstances, he was automatically declined into adult court and subjected to adult punishment under the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA). Under RCW 9.94A.530(1), Mr. Gregg bore the burden of proving his own diminished culpability to receive an exceptional sentence below the standard range. This statute violates article I, section 14 as applied to Mr. Gregg. He, like any other child, is inherently less culpable than his adult counterparts. For a standard range sentence to meet the strictures of article I, section 14, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a child’s culpability is equivalent to an adult’s. Review is warranted under RAP 13.4(b)(3) and (4) to ensure that the procedures governing the sentencing of children in adult court manifest the heightened protection of article I, section 14.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Sebastian Gregg was 17 years old when he was charged, convicted, and sentenced for his crimes. The juvenile was automatically transferred to adult court and sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) without full consideration of his specific circumstances. Under RCW 9.94A.530(1), Mr. Gregg was required to prove his diminished culpability to receive an exceptional sentence below the standard range. This statute is argued to violate article I, section 14 as applied to Mr. Gregg. The argument posits that a child, like Mr. Gregg, is inherently less culpable than an adult. For a standard range sentence to adhere to the requirements of article I, section 14, the State must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a child’s culpability is equal to that of an adult. Review is requested under RAP 13.4(b)(3) and (4) to ensure that the procedures governing the sentencing of children in adult court uphold the heightened protections mandated by article I, section 14.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Sebastian Gregg was 17 years old when he was charged, convicted, and sentenced as an adult. Under Washington state law, he was automatically transferred to adult court and sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) without a full consideration of his age and circumstances. The state law requires juveniles to prove their diminished culpability in order to receive a sentence below the standard range. This law, however, violates the constitutional right to due process of law, which requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a juvenile's culpability is equivalent to an adult's. The case raises concerns about the sentencing procedures for juveniles in adult court, which fail to provide the heightened protection required by the Constitution. The court should review the case to ensure that these procedures comply with the requirements of due process.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Sebastian Gregg was 17 years old when he was found guilty of a crime and sentenced as an adult. He was automatically sent to adult court without fully considering his age and circumstances. Under a law called the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), Mr. Gregg was given a standard sentence, and he had to prove he deserved a lighter sentence. This law, however, doesn't fairly consider that teenagers are less responsible than adults. To be fair, the state needs to show that Mr. Gregg was as responsible as an adult for his actions. Because of this, the court should review his case to make sure the sentencing process for teenagers is fair and protects their rights.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Sebastian Gregg was just 17 years old when he was in trouble with the law. He was tried as an adult and given a punishment that's usually given to grown-ups. This happened because of a law called the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA). The law says that Sebastian had to prove that he wasn't as responsible for his actions as a grown-up. But this law is unfair because teenagers are still learning and not as mature as adults. This law doesn't give teenagers the extra protection they need. This case is important because it could change the way teenagers are treated in court and make sure they get fair punishments.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Memorandum of Amicus Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality in Support of Petition for Review, State v. Gregg, No. 97517-5 (Wash. Oct. 7, 2019).

    Highlights

      Share your Highlights