An array of juvenile justice-related and human rights organizations filed amicus briefs in support of a case the UT Law School clinic hopes the Supreme Court will hear.
UT Law's Supreme Court Clinic reviewed the five briefs Monday and members hope the briefs will increase their chances of getting their case to the nation's highest court. The clinic hopes the court will review Christopher Pittman's 30-year sentence in prison without parole for the murder of his paternal grandparents. According to the clinic, Pittman was given an excessive sentence considering he committed the crime when he was 12, yet was sentenced in South Carolina as if he were an adult.
An amicus brief is filed by a "friend of the court" who is interested in the case but is not a party to it.
Michele Deitch, an adjunct professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, is working with the clinic. She said having five briefs filed at this stage of the process is extremely unusual and shows the importance of the case.
"We are gratified that so many influential organizations and individuals in the field believe our case is important enough to take the time and effort to provide their perspectives to the Supreme Court on this issue," Deitch said. "Each of these briefs reflects a different stakeholder group's unique insights into these critical juvenile justice issues."
Briefs regarding the case have been filed by:
• the Juvenile Law Center and 15 other juvenile justice advocacy organizations
• scientific experts on adolescent psychology and brain development
• three judges who have written about transfers of juveniles to the adult criminal court system and have handled cases of serious juvenile offenders
• the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators
• five international human rights organizations
The clinic filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court, on Dec. 17.
Law School Professor Michael Sturley directs the law clinic with professor Lynn Blais. Five law students worked on the Pittman case with the clinic and five LBJ School of Public Affairs graduate students, under Deitch's supervision, have done background research regarding domestic and international juvenile justice practices.
"South Carolina called him an adult, but he was a 12-year-old child, and he should suffer the consequences appropriate for a 12-year-old child," Sturley said.
The clinic uses the court's 2005 ruling in Roper v. Simmons to make their case for Pittman. In Simmons, the court rejected the use of the death penalty for juveniles, holding that "children are different" when sentencing is involved.
The clinic wants the court to clarify whether Pittman is protected under the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment.
Attorney Lanny Vickery briefed a trial court and the South Carolina Supreme Court on the Eighth Amendment. He brought Pittman's case to the clinic and asked for help in petitioning the Supreme Court to hear his case.
Deitch said the Pittman case tests the viability of the juvenile justice system.
"If it can't be used for 12-year-olds who commit serious crimes, who is it for?" Deitch asked.
The clinic said children should be recognized as being in a developing stage, rendering them less culpable than adults.
Be the first to comment on this article!