Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Brief of Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan
The brief argues that life without parole for youth convicted of felony murder under aiding and abetting is unconstitutional. It claims these sentences are disproportionate to the youths' reduced culpability.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center et al., Supporting Appellee Songster
The brief argues that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional, citing a Supreme Court ruling. This ruling should apply retroactively to previous cases, making the appellee's sentence invalid.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center on Behalf of Respondent
This brief argues that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional, based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama. It asserts this rule should apply retroactively to cases like the respondent's.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, et al. Supporting Petitioner Gary L. Griffin
This brief argues that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional, applying the Miller v. Alabama ruling retroactively. It asserts that continued imposition of such sentences violates the Eighth Amendment.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Juvenile Law Center in Support of Respondents Michael Soto, Robert Tulloch, Robert Dingman, and Eduardo Lopez, Jr.
This brief argues mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional and apply retroactively. It contends the Supreme Court already applied it retroactively and it is a substantive and watershed rule.
Amended Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center et al., in Support of Appellants, Blake Layman and Levi Sparks
This brief argues that applying felony murder statutes to juveniles conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and adolescent brain science. It seeks to bar or limit such applications for juvenile offenders.
Brief for Children at Risk as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent
This brief argues that courts must fully consider a child's development and rehabilitation potential before transferring them to adult court. It asserts that serious juvenile offenses alone are not sufficient for adult certification.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center et al. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellee Cameron Moon
The brief argues that transferring a juvenile to adult court based solely on the charged offense is unconstitutional. It contends that an individualized review of the youth's maturity and capacity for change is required.
Amicus Curiae Brief of Texas Appleseed in Support of Appellee Cameron Moon
This brief argues that juvenile courts must consider all factors, not just the offense, before transferring a youth to adult court. It asserts that ignoring other factors is unconstitutional and harmful to juveniles.
Brief of Professor Michele Deitch in Support of Appellant Cameron Moon
This brief argues that juveniles tried as adults are not significantly different from those in the juvenile system. It contends that county of conviction, rather than offense or history, largely determines who is tried as an adult.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, Campaign for Youth Justice, Center on Children and Families, Central Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Southern Juvenile Defender Center in Support of Appellant Dorian Rafael Romero
The brief argues that court deadlines should be paused for incarcerated adolescents who lack legal support. It states that adolescents need adult advocates to access the courts effectively.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorney Association in Support of Appellee State of Ohio
The brief argues that an offender's lengthy cumulative prison sentence for multiple crimes is not unconstitutional under Eighth Amendment precedent. It distinguishes such a sentence from a life-without-parole sentence for a single offense.
Merit Brief of Amicus Curiae, the Office of the Ohio Public Defender, in Support of Appellant Brandon Moore
This brief argues that a 92-year sentence for a child who did not kill violates the right to a meaningful opportunity for release established in *Graham v. Florida*, regardless of the sentence's official label.
Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant, B.M.
The brief argues that sentencing children to de facto life without parole for non-homicide crimes is unconstitutional. It claims children are less culpable than adults and deserve a chance at release through rehabilitation.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant Brandon Moore
This brief argues that a 92-year sentence for a juvenile's non-homicide crime is unconstitutional. It claims this lengthy term is functionally a life without parole sentence, violating Eighth Amendment protections for juveniles.