In the case of DeMola v. Cavazos (2013), Natalie DeMola, who was convicted of murder as a minor and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP), appealed her conviction. DeMola alleged a violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial due to the trial court's removal of a juror who was the sole advocate for her acquittal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this claim, concluding that the juror's actions constituted misconduct and thus justified removal. However, the court acknowledged DeMola's separate argument concerning the constitutionality of her LWOP sentence under the Eighth Amendment. While the court declined to rule on the Eighth Amendment issue at that time, it did observe that the sentencing judge had taken mitigating factors into account and that the structure of the sentence itself allowed for potential avenues for leniency.

Natalie DeMola, who received a life sentence without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for a murder committed as a minor, appealed her conviction in the case of DeMola v. Cavazos (2013). DeMola argued that the removal of a juror during her trial infringed upon her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The juror in question, who was the sole voice advocating for DeMola's acquittal, was dismissed by the trial court due to alleged misconduct.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected DeMola's claim, determining that the juror's actions did constitute misconduct and thus justified their removal. Consequently, the court upheld DeMola's conviction. However, the court also acknowledged DeMola's separate argument that the LWOP sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. While the Ninth Circuit did not issue a ruling on this Eighth Amendment claim during this appeal, it did observe that the sentencing judge had taken mitigating factors into consideration and that the structure of the LWOP sentence allowed for potential avenues for leniency.

Natalie DeMola, who was found guilty of murder as a teenager and given a life sentence without the possibility of parole, recently challenged her conviction in court. Her case, DeMola v. Cavazos (2013), argued that her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated because the judge removed the only juror who was leaning towards saying she was not guilty. The judge said this juror wasn't following the rules, but DeMola argued that removing this juror was a mistake.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with DeMola, saying that the juror was acting inappropriately and that her conviction should stand. However, the court also looked at DeMola's argument that her sentence, life in prison without parole, was too harsh and might be unconstitutional. While they didn't make a decision on that issue yet, they did point out that the original judge had considered things that might have made her sentence shorter and that the sentence itself wasn't completely inflexible.

Natalie DeMola was just a teenager when she was found guilty of murder and given a very serious sentence: life in prison without the possibility of parole. This means she would spend the rest of her life in prison. Natalie argued that her trial wasn't fair because the judge removed the only juror who thought she shouldn't be found guilty. This juror was removed for misbehaving. In 2013, a court case called DeMola v. Cavazos looked at her claims. The court decided that the juror had misbehaved and removing them was the right decision, so Natalie's guilty verdict stayed.

However, the court also looked at whether Natalie's punishment was too harsh. Even though they didn't make a decision about that yet, they did point out that the judge had thought about things that might make her sentence shorter. They also noted that her sentence might allow for some leniency, meaning she might have a chance to get out of prison someday.