By: Timothy Aderman
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has been softening the punitive edges of sentencing schemes for young people, ages 17 and under. Starting in 2005 with the Roper v. Simmons case, juveniles in the criminal court system are slowly being afforded more consideration in the context of their youth.
In 2012, SCOTUS ruled in Miller v. Alabama that juveniles found guilty of murder cannot automatically receive a sentence of life without parole. In this case, 14-year old Evan Miller was found guilty of murder. A life without parole sentence was automatically applied per Alabama statute. This sentence disallowed the judge to consider mitigating factors. SCOTUS justices found the statute automatically applying a life without parole sentence to be unconstitutional.
While a life without parole sentence for juveniles remains an option for the most severe cases, the door is opened for other, less punitive sentences. This allows an appropriate sentence to be determined by a judge instead of by statute.
SCOTUS is preparing to hear Montgomery v. Louisiana. This case involves a 17-year old, Henry Montgomery, who was found guilty of murder. He was given capital punishment. On retrial, this sentence was decreased to a life without parole sentence.
Montgomery will ask whether or not the Miller ruling applies to sentences that occurred prior to 2012. The outcome of Montgomery will be crucial in determining the fate of countless juveniles who were sentenced to life without parole prior to Miller.
Currently, large law firms conducting pro bono activity, select law centers, and law school clinics are conducting post-Miller sentence challenges. Each challenge is submitted on behalf of a juvenile who was sentenced to life without parole prior to the Miller ruling. The motion seeks a new sentencing hearing, or collateral review, that takes into account myriad factors including the appellant’s youthful age at the time of the arrest and initial sentence.
If SCOTUS rules in favor of Montgomery, all cases affecting juveniles with life without parole sentences will be given a new sentencing hearing. Some states have already applied Miller retroactively. However, Montgomery may require all states to reconsider each case.
If SCOTUS rules in favor of Louisiana, inmates who are eligible to submit sentencing appeals will need to continue seeking the assistance of pro bono activities if they do not reside in a state mandating a new sentencing hearing.
Currently, amicus curiae briefs are being prepared.
Photo: jlc.org