Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Brief of Amici Curiae J. Lawrence Aber et Al., in Support of Petitioners
Adolescents' developing brains make them less culpable than adults and capable of change. Life without parole for adolescent homicide offenses is therefore unfair and unconstitutional.
Brief for the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that scientific research on juvenile brain development supports extending a ban on life sentences for non-homicide juvenile offenses to all juvenile crimes. It asserts that juveniles are less culpable than adults.
Brief for Amicus Curiae the Innocence Project Supporting Petitioner-Appellee and Urging Affirmance
The brief argues that unreliable eyewitness identification led to a wrongful conviction. The in-court identification was tainted by an illegal lineup, and scientific research confirms its likely inaccuracy.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, et al. in Support of Respondent Lee Boyd Malvo
The brief argues that life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional without considering factors like age, home life, and role in the crime. Courts nationwide have applied this standard to invalidate such sentences.
Brief of Loyola Civitas Law Center, Children and Family Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, and National Juvenile Defender Center as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellant Austin M.
This brief argues a lawyer cannot serve as both defense counsel and guardian for a child in delinquency court. These dual roles create a conflict of interest, violating the child's constitutional right to an attorney.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center as Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Appellant, L.S.W.
The brief argues that sentencing juveniles to life without parole for crimes where they did not kill or intend to kill is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.
Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, the Latina/o Bar Association of Washington, and the Loren Miller Bar Association, in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that a 92.5-year sentence for a juvenile in a non-homicide case is cruel punishment. It urges the court to define "meaningful opportunity for release" as no longer than the offender's age at the time of the crime.
Brief of Amicus Curiae TeamChild
The brief argues current zero tolerance policies and school resource officers create a harsher school environment. It questions if these changes improve safety, noting increased student contact with the justice system.
Brief of Indiana, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
The brief argues that Miranda custody should not consider age, as it is a subjective factor already covered by voluntariness assessments. An objective standard for custody avoids confusion for police and unnecessary societal costs.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center et al. on Behalf of Appellant Rodrigo Caballero
The brief argues a 16-year-old's 110-year sentence for non-homicide offenses is unconstitutional. It claims this "life without parole" sentence violates Supreme Court rulings requiring a meaningful chance for juveniles to re-enter society.
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center on Behalf of Appellant Rodrigo Caballero
This brief argues that a 110-year sentence for a juvenile non-homicide offender is cruel and unusual punishment. Such a sentence is a de facto life sentence, violating both the US and California Constitutions.
Brief of Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Appellant, Paul H. Gingerich
The brief argues the trial court did not protect Paul Gingerich's due process rights. It failed to ensure his competency at key stages, violating state and federal law, leading to unfair proceedings.
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent
Courts should use objective factors to determine if a suspect is "in custody" for Miranda warnings, not a suspect's age or psychological vulnerabilities. Adding age would complicate Miranda and open the door to other subjective factors.
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner
The brief argues New Hampshire courts violated due process by not assessing suggestive identification reliability, regardless of state action. It asserts reliability is key for admitting identification evidence to ensure fair trials.
Brief for the American Psychological Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner
The brief argues that eyewitness identifications can be unreliable, violating due process rights. It contends that courts should assess identification reliability regardless of whether state actors caused the suggestive circumstances.