Topic Archive: Collateral Consequences

In re A.J.

NJDC co-authored a brief with the law firm of Baker & McKenzie arguing to uphold the trial court’s determination that juvenile defendant, A.J., charged with a sex offense, was entitled to a jury trial. Amici argued that due process, the deplorable state of juvenile justice in Louisiana, and the rehabilitative goals of Louisiana’s juvenile justice system…

Bellevue Sch. Dist. v. E.S.

NJDC signed onto an amicus brief written by the Juvenile Law Center supporting the Washington Court of Appeals ruling that a student has a due process right to counsel at the initial hearing of a juvenile court truancy proceeding. Other amici in this case included the ACLU of Washington, arguing the state and federal constitutional…

Collateral Consequences

Adjudications of delinquency, or juvenile convictions, can follow an individual throughout adulthood and have far-reaching consequences on a youth’s ability to join the military, pursue higher education, obtain housing, or secure employment. While the full scope of the collateral consequences that come with delinquency court charges vary greatly from state to state, NJDC’s Guide to…

Immigration

Juvenile defenders must be aware of the immigration consequences of juvenile court involvement and delinquency adjudications, as well as the immigration relief options available to avoid deportation. Negative immigration consequences are often just as important for the client to consider as incarceration. When a young client’s immigration consequences are complicated, it is imperative that defenders…

E.C. v. Virginia Dep’t of Juvenile Justice

In 2011, NJDC filed an amicus brief and a supporting supplemental brief, joined by Mid-Atlantic Juvenile Defender Center, the Disability Law Clinic, the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, and other interested parties, in support of a challenge to the lower court’s ruling that Virginia courts lose jurisdiction over pending habeas cases as soon as…

In re C.P.

In September 2010, NJDC, joined by several organizations, filed an amicus brief  in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the application of Ohio Senate Bill 10 (passed to comply with the Adam Walsh Act (AWA)) to juveniles where it requires mandatory tier III classification of juveniles aged 14 to 17 as Public Registry-Qualified Juvenile Offender Registrants…

Gingerich v. Indiana

In November 2011, NJDC, the Children’s Law Center and the Campaign for Youth Justice joined as amici in a brief to the Indiana Court of Appeals, urging it to consider the due process protections that must be afforded a youth in any decision to waive the youth to adult court—namely, that due process in waiver…

In re Austin M.

In 2011, NJDC, Juvenile Law Center, Loyola Civitas ChildLaw Center, and the Children and Family Justice Center of the Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern University School of Law, joined as amici in a brief to the Illinois Supreme Court, arguing that Austin M.’s constitutional right to counsel in a delinquency proceeding was breached where his…

People v. Pacheco

NJDC joins Juvenile Law Center, the Loyola Civitas Childlaw Center, and several other organizations, in filing an amicus brief at the Illinois Supreme Court challenging Illinois’s automatic transfer statute, and the consequent imposition of mandatory sentences on minors. Amici argued that the automatic exclusion from juvenile court of 15- and 16-year-olds charged with felony murder…

People v. Gutierrez

NJDC joins Juvenile Law Center and several other organizations in an amicus brief filed in the California Supreme Court in support of the position that the presumptive penalty of life without parole for 16- and 17-year-old juveniles convicted of homicide with special circumstances violates the Eighth Amendment and runs counter to the United States Supreme Court’s…

Roper v. Simmons

In 2004, NJDC, Juvenile Law Center, and several other interested organizations filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Christopher Simmons, a Missouri juvenile who was convicted of homicide and sentenced to death. The case challenged the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty—specifically arguing that the execution of an individual for…

Pleas

The majority of cases filed in delinquency court are resolved through a plea agreement. Pleas can be concerning if they are made after only the briefest of meetings between client and attorney, and with no time for adequate investigation, thought, or thorough discussion. Before a young client accepts a plea agreement, defenders must ensure the…

State Assessments

A cornerstone of the National Juvenile Defender Center’s work is to understand how juvenile defense is delivered around the country and to support excellence in the provision of those services. As part of that work, NJDC conducts state-specific assessments of youth access to, and the quality of, juvenile defense counsel when they come in contact…