Document Category: Eighth Amendment

This amicus brief urges the Arizona Supreme Court not to issue an execution warrant without first conducting a full and independent review of the state’s lethal injection practices. Drawing on research and autopsy data, the brief explains that Arizona’s one-drug pentobarbital protocol virtually guarantees the onset of acute pulmonary edema—causing the condemned to drown in their own fluids and experience sensations of terror and panic, like waterboarding (pp. 7–9, 13). These risks are magnified by Arizona’s history of illegally importing drugs, reliance on high-risk compounding pharmacies, and repeated failure to employ qualified medical personnel (pp. 10–14). The state’s record includes hiring executioners with malpractice histories, using unlicensed staff, and even determining lethal doses using Wikipedia (pp. 14–15). Finally, the brief highlights Arizona’s secrecy—exemplified by its termination of an independent review. (pp. 15–17). Defenders can use this brief to challenge the constitutionality of the pentobarbital protocol.

This brief argues that mandatory life without parole sentences are unconstitutional for people up to age 20 because late adolescents experience significant brain, behavioral, and psychological change similar to adolescents. The brief details brain development occurring from age 18-20 (pp. 3-12), explains how late adolescents are more vulnerable to risk taking and peer influence than adults (pp. 13-16), demonstrates that the brains and decision-making abilities of late adolescents are virtually indistinguishable from children under age 18 (pp. 17-21), describes how adversity slows neurocognitive development (pp. 21-35), and applies Michigan’s four-factor test for determining if punishment is cruel or unusual to 18 to 20 year olds (pp. 25-31).

This amicus brief argues that mandatory term-of-years sentences that deny juvenile offenders a meaningful opportunity for release function as unconstitutional life-without-parole sentences under the Eighth Amendment. Relying on Miller v. Alabama, Graham v. Florida, and Jones v. Mississippi, the brief contends that constitutional analysis must focus on the real-world effect of the imposed sentence rather than the label. It explains how mandatory minimums, sentencing enhancements, and parole practices can combine to impose de facto life sentences on juveniles absent the procedural protections required for imposing an LWOP under Miller. The brief incorporates empirical research on diminished life expectancy for incarcerated people—especially those sentenced as youth—to demonstrate that long mandatory sentences effectively condemn juveniles to die in prison.

This Amicus Brief, filed by the Juvenile Law Center; Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior, the Sentencing Project; and the Children’s Policy and Law Initiative of Indiana argues that long term-of-year sentences imposed on juveniles are tantamount to life without parole and are therefore unconstitutional.  Pages 8-11 discuss the neuroscience behind the development of the prefrontal cortex and explain how brain science shows that adolescents’ long-term planning skills, emotional regulation abilities, impulse control, ability to evaluate risk and reward, and susceptibility to peer pressure are all still developing into a person’s twenties.  Pages 12-13 discuss how these characteristics are transient and show that youth with antisocial tendencies, violent behaviors, and impaired empathy often improve significantly in their mid-twenties.  Pages 13-15 discuss the connection between trauma and brain development, explaining how youth who are chronically traumatized and left alone often have documented difficulty with emotional regulation traceable to inhibited brain development.  The research relied on in this amicus brief could be useful to defenders representing anyone under the age of twenty-five to argue for mitigation in sentencing.

This NAACP amicus brief argues that Missouri’s parole procedures are unconstitutional as applied to juveniles,  because they do not provide juveniles with a meaningful opportunity to obtain release (leading to de facto life without parole sentences). Pages 10-13 rely on statistics to show that  race affects sentencing and that Black men and boys are punished with more severe penalties than their white counterparts. Pages 13-14 document research showing how racial stereotypes of Black men and boys as violent affect peoples’ behaviors and attitudes toward them. Pages 14-15 discuss research showing that judges are not immune to implicit racial biases. The studies discussed in this amicus brief could be useful to defenders who want to highlight the problems of racial bias (explicit and implicit) in sentencing in order to prevent such biases from infecting sentencing decisions.