Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Risk Taking and the Adolescent Reward System: a Potential Common Link to Substance Abuse
The article finds that adolescents who take more risks show less brain activity in areas related to reward. This suggests a common brain basis for risk-taking and addiction, possibly before substance abuse begins.
Paula E v. State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services
The Alaska Supreme Court found that OCS did not follow proper procedures regarding notice of hearings and visitation rights for a mother whose four children were removed due to substance abuse.
Jackson v. State
The court upheld convictions for MDMA and firearms offenses. Evidence was sufficient and mental illness defenses were rejected.
Romero v. State
The court upheld a life sentence for second-degree murder, ruling that a prior decision limiting life without parole for juveniles applies only to non-homicide offenses.
State v. Wright
The court vacated a death sentence. Expert testimony showed the defendant's heroin addiction and cognitive limits made his Miranda waiver unknowing and confession unreliable.
Conley v. State
The Indiana Supreme Court upheld a life without parole sentence for a 17-year-old murderer. The court found the victim's young age outweighed the defendant's age and mental health.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center on Behalf of Appellant
This brief argues that Nebraska's mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional. It claims the law fails to consider a juvenile's culpability or provide parole for those not directly involved in a killing.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center et al. in Support of Appellees and Urging Affirmance
This brief argues that routine, suspicionless strip searches of juveniles for minor offenses are unconstitutional. It claims these searches violate Fourth Amendment rights and do not meet "special needs" criteria.
Brief on Behalf of Defendant-Appellant
This brief argues that the lower court's sentence for a juvenile violates Supreme Court precedent by not considering the individual's culpability and denying a meaningful chance for release.
Brief of Jeffrey Fagan, Deborah Baskin, Frank R. Baumgartner, Katherine Beckett, Donna Bishop, Alfred Blumstein, and Robert Brame et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that the "juvenile superpredator" concept, which led to harsh sentencing for youth, was a myth. It contends that life without parole sentences for juveniles lack an empirical basis and do not deter crime.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that sentencing juveniles to life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment. It contends that juveniles are less culpable than adults and capable of rehabilitation, making such sentences disproportionate.
Supplemental Brief for Amicus Curiae the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association in Support of Appellee the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Miller v. Alabama only bars mandatory life without parole for juveniles and does not negate first-degree murder convictions. It requires a new sentencing hearing to consider youth, but a maximum life term remains valid.
Brief of NAACP et al. in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that sentencing a 14-year-old to life without parole is unconstitutional, citing cruel and unusual punishment. It states that racial bias improperly influences such sentences for children.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center and the National Juvenile Defender Center as Amici Curiae in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
This brief argues that sentencing a child to prison for over 100 years for non-homicide crimes is unconstitutional. It asserts that children must have a meaningful chance for release, even if not labeled "life without parole."
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.