Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Struve v. Struve
The court affirmed that petitioners failed to prove their father was a "vulnerable elder" under Iowa law. This meant the claims of exploitation in farmland deals could not proceed.
Marshall v. State
The court upheld a 21-year-old's 15-year burglary sentence. Protections for juveniles did not apply as he was an adult at the time of the offense and did not receive a life sentence.
Commonwealth v. Machicote
The court ruled a juvenile’s 30-years-to-life sentence violated Eighth Amendment rights by not adequately considering youth factors. The defendant committed murder as a juvenile.
U.S. v. Sparks
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a 35-year sentence for crimes committed at age sixteen. The Court held this sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against life without parole for juveniles.
State v. Shanahan
The Idaho Supreme Court ruled a juvenile offender's long fixed-term, indeterminate life sentence was not a de facto life sentence. This meant it did not violate the Eighth Amendment under Miller v. Alabama.
Brief of the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the Health in Justice Action Lab at Northeastern University of Law joined by Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
This brief argues that Jesse Carrillo’s convictions for drug distribution and involuntary manslaughter should be overturned. It asserts his actions were not reckless and that he should have been charged with simple drug possession instead.
Brief of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that individuals serving life without parole for crimes committed between 18 and 21 years old should have their sentences reconsidered.
Brief of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Defender Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
This brief argues that courts should set minimum sentences for juveniles at the statutory minimum unless proven incorrigible. It contends that identifying an "irreparably corrupt" youth is too difficult and risks unfairly long sentences.
Brief of Amici Curiae Justice for All Alliance in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that executing murderers under 18 is not cruel and unusual punishment. It contends that the Court should assess each juvenile's moral culpability individually, rather than grouping them by age.
Memorandum of Amicus Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality in Support of Petition for Review
This brief argues a 17-year-old was wrongly sentenced as an adult without considering his youth. It claims the state should prove a child's adult-level culpability, not require the child to prove diminished responsibility.
Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: A review
Neuroscientific evidence can mitigate legal decisions, but brain imaging does not hold special persuasive power. The findings offer insights for scientists, legal scholars, judges, and jurors.
Brief of Former WV Delegate John Ellem, Former HI Rep. Karen Awana, HI Rep. John Mizuno, NV Assemblyman John Hambrick, VT Rep. Barbara Rachelson, UT Rep. V. Lowry Snow, AR Sen. Missy Irvin, and AR Sen. Greg Leding as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
The brief argues that Miller and Montgomery apply to all juvenile life without parole sentences, not just mandatory ones. Most states have already adopted this view in their laws or court rulings.
Brief Amici Curiae of Erwin Chemerinsky, Aziz Huq, Leah Litman, David Strauss, Carlos Vázquez, and Larry Yackle in Support of Respondent
Lee Malvo argues his life without parole sentence as a juvenile is unconstitutional. He claims current law requires considering a juvenile's youth and only allows such sentences for the rarest, irreparably corrupt offenders.
Brief of Scholars of Criminal Law as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole is unconstitutional without a finding of permanent incorrigibility. It contends that evidence of a child's rehabilitation should prevent such a sentence.
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner
This brief argues that past Supreme Court decisions do not allow retroactively invalidating discretionary life-without-parole sentences for juveniles. It asserts that prior rulings only applied to mandatory, not discretionary, sentences.