Argued that imposing strict liability on a 12-year-old violates the US and Ohio Constitutions’  guarantees of fundamental fairness, provides for highly disproportionate penalties and collateral consequences and creates a risk of prosecution based on personal views or biases.

This brief involved a thirteen-year-old special needs student who was questioned by a uniformed police officer on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins.  JLC argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.

This brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court dealt with a Connecticut statute, which allows a prosecutor to choose the forum in which youthful offenders are tried.  Amici argued that this statute deprived youthful offenders of their right to due process by placing sole discretion to waive in the hands of the prosecutor.

This brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court dealt with a Connecticut statute governing transfer of juveniles to adult court.  Amici argued that the statute, which gave the prosecutor sole discretion to transfer a juvenile’s case to the adult criminal system, deprived juveniles of their right to due process.

Supporting a juvenile defendant in Illinois who challenged the representation he received in court, when his defense lawyer sacrificed his defense believing that it was in the child’s “best interests”.

Argued that a provision in New Mexico state law allowing juveniles to be sentenced by juvenile court judges as adults if the judge found them “not amenable to treatment” was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment.