The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today on a case presented by LSU Law alumni and former participants in the Center’s Juvenile Defense Clinical Legal Education program. LSU Law alums squared off on both sides of Montgomery v. Louisiana (case No. 14-280).
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, prohibiting a mandatory life without parole sentence for juvenile offenders, provides for a new substantive rule that is retroactive in cases on state collateral review, the court decided in its 6-3 decision.
In October 2015, Mark Plaisance (’93), Counsel of Record, argued the case of Henry Montgomery before the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaisance, Lindsay Jarrell Blouin (’12), former participant in the LSU Law Center’s Juvenile Justice Clinic, and Sean Collins (’06), former Adjunct Professor in the Juvenile Defense Clinic and now part of the Baton Rouge Capital Conflicts office, were part of the East Baton Rouge Parish Public Defenders Office team that prepared the case. Kyle Duncan (’97) was Counsel of Record and Special Counsel to the Louisiana Attorney General in the case. He was assisted by Collin Clark (’11), former Juvenile Defense Clinic participant and now Assistant Attorney General.
The Court ruled on Monday, January 25, that people serving life terms for murders they committed as teenagers must have a chance to seek their freedom. The Justices voted to extend the ruling from 2012 that struck down automatic life terms with no chance of parole for convicted teenagers. The Court ruled that even those convicted long ago must be considered for parole or given new sentences. Montgomery was a 17-year-old when he was convicted for the killing of a sheriff’s deputy in 1963. He has been in prison for more than 50 years.
The Juvenile Defense Clinic is directed by Prof. Hector Linares. Students receive intensive instruction in the substantive law, procedures and concepts needed to defend youth charged with criminal offenses in juvenile court delinquency proceedings. The clinical work focuses equally on the constitutional rights and procedural protections held in common with criminally accused adults as well as the unique protections of juvenile court that make juvenile justice a specialized area of law. Students also explore the underlying and often competing interests that shape juvenile justice policy reform efforts.
Excerpted from: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jan/25/us-supreme-court-montgomery-v-louisiana-parole-teenagers-murder-life-sentences
