Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
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.
Ramos v. Patnaude
The First Circuit upheld summary judgment for Dr. Patnaude, finding no evidence of deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee's heroin withdrawal beyond possible negligence.
DePierre v. United States
The Supreme Court ruled that “cocaine base” covers all basic forms of cocaine, not only crack. This expanded the scope of the ADAA's sentencing provisions.
Tapia v. US
The Court ruled that sentencing courts cannot lengthen or impose a prison term to promote a defendant’s rehabilitation. This ensures prison sentences focus on punishment, not rehabilitation efforts.
Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing
The Court ruled generic drug makers cannot be sued over label warnings under state law. Federal law requires their labels to match brand-name drugs, impacting recourse for patients.
Pepper v. United States
The Court held that judges can consider a defendant's rehabilitation, including drug recovery, when resentencing. This decision restores judicial discretion in sentencing.
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.
Frontostriatal Maturation Predicts Cognitive Control Failure to Appetitive Cues in Adolescents
Research suggests adolescent risk-taking is linked to an imbalance in brain development. Brain regions seeking rewards mature faster than those controlling impulses, leading to heightened risk behaviors.
Peers Increase Adolescent Risk Taking by Enhancing Activity in the Brain’s Reward Circuitry
Teenagers take more risks than adults, especially when friends are present. This behavior likely stems from two brain systems developing at different rates during adolescence.