Students Testify On Behalf Of Juvenile “Lifers”

By Sara Fairchild and Sarah West

Sarah West (L) and Sara Fairchild (R) are 3Ls in the AUWCL Criminal Justice Clinic (Defense)

This year, students in the Criminal Justice Clinic had the opportunity to represent individuals serving life sentences in Maryland for crimes committed as juveniles. Maryland is one of only three states in the U.S. that give their governors final authority to deny parole to people serving life-with-parole sentences. Even if the Maryland Parole Commission recommends a “lifer” for parole, the Governor may reject the Commission’s recommendation and deny release for any reason. In 1995, Maryland’s then-Governor, Parris Glendening, announced a policy of refusing to grant parole regardless of a candidate’s growth or rehabilitation. Every Governor since has followed suit. Of the more than 200 individuals serving juvenile life sentences, none has been paroled in over two decades.

Our client was only fourteen years old at the time of the crime underlying his life sentence. When we met him, we learned about all of the things he has done to become a better person during his time in prison, and we saw that he is a different man from the child who committed a terrible crime decades ago. Despite this growth and progress, he may never see life outside of prison due to the state’s unforgiving parole system.

In a series of decisions issued over the last decade, including Graham v. Florida, Miller v. Alabama, and Montgomery v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that sentencing a juvenile to a lifetime in prison without a “meaningful opportunity for release” violates the Eighth Amendment in all but the rarest of cases.

This spring, we voiced our concerns before the Maryland House of Delegates, which was considering House Bill 723. The proposed legislation, supported by the Maryland ACLU and the Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative, seeks to repeal the provisions in Maryland’s parole statute that give the Governor final say in parole decisions for individuals serving life sentences.

On February 14, we testified before the House Judiciary Committee, urging the Delegates to support HB 723. We talked about our client, a man who is the epitome of someone who deserves parole because of the steps he has taken to change. We argued that the purpose of the parole system is to encourage inmates to rehabilitate and prove themselves to be worthy of release. We pointed out the cognitive and emotional differences between adults and juveniles, which have caused the Supreme Court to distinguish the two when looking at the constitutionality of a life sentence without parole. Finally, we asked the delegates to recognize the reality of the situation and acknowledge that even though Maryland law theoretically provides the possibility of parole to juvenile lifers, under current law, none have a “meaningful opportunity for release.”

HB 723 passed in the House of Delegates in March 2017. It is currently pending before the Maryland Senate. You can check the status of the legislation here.

Professor Roberts and AUWCL Students Write Amicus Brief in Lee v. U.S. on Behalf of Three Immigration Law Organizations

Prof. Jenny Roberts is a co-director of the Criminal Justice Clinic at American University, Washington College of Law

Prof. Jenny Roberts wrote an amicus brief in Lee v. US on behalf of three of three national organizations that work at the intersection of criminal and immigration law, the Immigrant Defense Project, The Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. Three WCL students worked on the brief: Roberto Martinez ’17 and Christina Moehrle ’17 (both in the Criminal Justice Clinic), and Aaron Garavaglia ’16.

Mr. Lee came to the US more than 20 years ago as a child, and has never returned to his country of origin, South Korea. Although  his attorney assured him that his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute ecstasy would not have immigration consequences, that advice was incorrect and Mr. Lee’s conviction made him mandatorily deportable. The Supreme Court will hear argument on March 28th on the issue of whether Mr. Lee’s attorney’s misadvice actually caused him prejudice, a requirement for demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The government argues that, because the evidence against Mr. Lee was strong, he cannot show prejudice.  The amicus brief discusses how, even when evidence against a non-citizen is strong, competent criminal defense counsel can negotiate with the government to find an alternative plea that does not lead to mandatory deportation, even if it leads to similar or more incarceration than the deportable conviction. The brief offers a number of stories from actual criminal cases where defense counsel successfully bargained to avoid some or all immigration consequences.

For more information on the WCL Criminal Justice Clinic, visit the webpage!