Motion (Aug.26, 2021)

Order (Aug. 27, 2021)

Argument: Joint agreement with government, notable because the sentencing change in this case was the removal of the recency criminal-history point from the guidelines, which had moved defendant up a criminal history category; also includes a section 404/crack retro argument because he was eligible, and argued the GL change there too. He had also served a long time and had good equities, and that guideline hook was enough to get some traction. Second look: not just for statutory changes.”

Motion (Aug 26, 2021)

Order (Auf. 27, 2021)

Argument: (joint agreement with government, notable because the sentencing change in this case was the removal of the recency criminal-history point from the guidelines, which had moved defendant up a criminal history category; also includes a section 404/crack retro argument because he was eligible, and argued the GL change there too. He had also served a long time and had good equities, and that guideline hook was enough to get some traction. Second look: not just for statutory changes.”

Amended Order Granting Motion for Modification of Term of Imprisonment

Argument: Compassionate Release granted for a stacked 924(c) client. “Based on Walden’s seemingly exceptional personal growth, the severity of his Sentence relative to [his cofedendant]’s and modern sentencing laws, and his age and criminal history at the time of the offenses, the Court concludes that Walden has demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons that could justify reducing the Sentence…The Court thus concludes that requiring Walden to remain in prison pursuant to the Sentence until 2056 would not accomplish the objectives identified by Congress in § 3553.”

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.

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.

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.