Coalition letter to Senate Judiciary leadership regarding pending legislation to properly apply sentencing law and further implement the FIRST STEP Act of 2018 and work toward eliminating disparities in an effort to protect vulnerable incarcerated people and promote relief opportunities.

Recent legislative changes to Virginia Code 16.1-272 give the judiciary greater guidance and discretion in sentencing youth convicted of felony offenses in Virginia. This program features an overview of the blended sentencing provisions for juveniles transferred to circuit court followed by a discussion of the new sentencing provisions passed earlier this year.

Presented by Alisa Rachelle Blair, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles County Public Defender

Race Matters II: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice
January 10-11, 2019 | Los Angeles, CA

Presented by: Marsha Levick, Co-Founder, Deputy Director, Chief Counsel, Juvenile Law Center; and Dr. Jennifer Woolard, Associate Professor of Psychology, Georgetown University and Research Fellow, Center for Social Justice

Coalition letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Democratic House leadership regarding a proposed ban on flavored tobacco products intended to protect youth but will affect communities of color and those targeted by policing, as addressed in the Protecting American Lungs and Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act of 2020 (H.R. 2339).

Coalition letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding proposed changes to sentencing and other aspects of human trafficking offenses, as addressed in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (H.R. 181) and Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation (SAVE) Act of 2015 (H.R. 285).

President John Wesley Hall and NACDL Sex Offender Policy Task Force chair Michael Iacopino's letter to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security regarding the difficulties of state compliance and other concerns with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (H.R. 4472).

Amicus curiae brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of petitioners.

Argument: Individuals younger than age 18 at the time of the offense should not be subject to life without parole sentences, as such sentences violate the Eighth Amendment.

Amicus curiae brief of the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of appellant.

Argument: Due to the potent nature of confession evidence, the Misskelley confession strongly influenced the jury’s verdict, even though it was not admitted at trial. Standard police interrogation tactics have been shown to induce false confessions, particularly in juveniles and the mentally impaired. Even while the Misskelley confession strongly influenced the jury’s decision to convict, it bears all the hallmarks of a false confession.

Amicus Brief of the National Juvenile Defender Center, National Assocaition of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et. al.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of petitioner.

Argument: The age of the person questioned may, consistent with Miranda, be part of the custody analysis; considering age as part of the custody inquiry does not impose any burdens on law enforcement and is consistent with Miranda’s policy goal to provide clear guidelines to law enforcement.

Amicus curiae brief of the Juvenile Law Center, Human Rights Advocates, Human Rights Watch, the Loyola Law School Center for Law and Policy, and the Disability Rights Legal Center filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant-appellant.

Argument: Sentencing a juvenile to imprisonment – a term of years – with a parole eligibility date that falls past his natural life expectancy violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. 

Brief of amicus curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of defendant-appellant.

Argument: The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that this case be remanded for individualized consideration of the ‘distinctive attributes of youth.’ The Supreme Court has held that children are constitutionally different from adults and cannot be sentenced to life without parole unless age is taken into account. The principles of Miller apply equally whether the LWOP sentence is mandated or imposed as a matter of discretion. Miller and the Supreme Court’s individualized sentencing cases require that the trial court actually consider and address the defendant’s youth. The record does not demonstrate that Eric Long’s age and attendant circumstances were considered in making the decision to sentence him to life without parole. This Court should, pursuant to Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, declare a life without parole sentence unconstitutional for any juvenile offender.

Amici curiae brief of the Juvenile Law Center, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. (totaling 41 groups and individuals set forth in Appendix A to the brief) in support of real party in interest Tyler B.

Argument: Age and other circumstances particular to youth are crucial factors in assessing the voluntariness of a consent to a search under the Fourth Amendment. Where the search is conducted in the school setting, age is even more relevant to the voluntariness determination.