No. 03-633 __________________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES __________________________________________ DONALD ROPER, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Petitioner v. CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS, Respondent _________________________________________ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI __________________________________________ Brief of Juvenile Law Center, Children and Family Justice Center, Center on Children and Families, Child Welfare League of America, Children’s Defense Fund, Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles, National Association of Counsel for Children, and 45 other organizations, as AMICI CURIAE In Support of Respondent ___________________________________________ Barbara Bennett Woodhouse Marsha L. Levick* Christopher Slobogin *Counsel of Record Fredric G. Levin College of Law Lourdes M. Rosado Center on Children and Families Nina W. Chernoff P.O. Box 117625 Juvenile Law Center University of Florida 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Gainesville, FL 32601-117625 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (352) 392 9001 (215) 625-0551 Michael C. Small Steven A. Drizin Edward P. Lazarus Northwestern University Jeffrey P. Kehne School of Law, Bluhm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Legal Clinic's Children and Feld Family Justice Center 2029 Century Park East 350 East Superior Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90067 Chicago, IL 60611 (310) 229-1000 (312) 503-8576 Counsel for Amici Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI ................................................................. 1 IDENTITY OF AMICI ................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................... 2 ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 4 I. LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF YOUTH DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EXECUTION OF MINORS UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE FAILS TO SERVE ANY RETRIBUTIVE PURPOSE UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT....................................5 A. Since Stanford, Increased Legislative Restrictions on Youth’s Participation in Activities Open to Adults Evidence a Consensus about the Incapacities and Impairments of Youth That Make Them Less Culpable for the Purposes of Eighth Amendment Proportionality Analysis....5 B. Supreme Court jurisprudence recognizing the differences between adolescents and adults supports the proposition that adolescents are less culpable than adults for purposes of Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis....................................................13 i II. AS IN ATKINS, THE LEGISLATIVE TREND TO ABOLISH THE JUVENILE DEATH PENALTY IS A COMPELLING STATEMENT OF SOCIETY’S ATTITUDES TOWARD EXECUTING YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF LAWS ALLOWING JUVENILES TO BE TRIED IN ADULT COURT DURING THIS SAME TIME PERIOD........................19 III. RESEARCH SINCE STANFORD DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DETERRENT RATIONALE FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS NOT MET BY IMPOSING IT ON YOUTH UNDER 18......................22 IV. JUVENILES, LIKE THE MENTALLY RETARDED, ARE MORE PRONE TO CONFESSING TO CRIMES THEY DID NOT COMMIT............................................25 CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 30 APPENDIX A ............................................................................. A1 APPENDIX B ............................................................................. B1 APPENDIX C ............................................................................. C1 APPENDIX D ............................................................................. D1 APPENDIX E ............................................................................. E1 APPENDIX F .............................................................................. F1 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 124 S. Ct. 2783 (2004)..............................................................................................17 Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)...............2, 4, 12, 19, 25, 27 Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) ............................................................ 15 Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)............................................16 Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969) .......................................... 27 Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49 (1962) .................................... 14 In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) ................................................. 14, 15 Ginsburg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968) ............................... 17 Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) ............................................... 5 Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596 (1948) ....................................... 13, 14 Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) ........... 17 Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) .............. 11, 12, 16, 17 Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003) ..................................... 14, 15 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) .................................... 17, 18 Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).......................................18 May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1953) ........................................ 13 McKeiver v Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971) .......................... 15 iii Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) .................................... 27 New Jersey v.T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) ................................... 16 Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) ........................................... 16 Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) ........................................ 2 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)................................17 Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) .............. 18 Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984) ............................. 15, 16, 17 Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989) ..................... 2, 4, 6, 12 Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988) .......... 4, 5, 6, 11, 18 Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) ......... 15, 16, 17 Yarborough v. Alvarado, 124 S. Ct. 2140 (2004) .................. 14, 15 OTHER FEDERAL CASES Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 188 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1999). .............................................................. 17 Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 1993) ............................... 17 Schleifer v. City of Charlottesville, 159 F.3d 843 (4th Cir. 1998).17 Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................ 26 FEDERAL STATUTES 10 U.S.C.A. § 505.............................................................................8 50 App. U.S.C.A. § 454....................................................................8 iv Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. No. 105- 262, § 8128, 112 Stat. 2279 (1998) ................................................ 8 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Ala. Const. amends. 386, 387...........................................................9 Arizona, Ariz. Const., art. 4, part 2 § 2221 ...................................21 STATE STATUTES Ala. Code § 12-16-60 ..................................................................... 7 Ala. Code § 26-1-1 ........................................................................ 5 Ala. Code § 5-19A..........................................................................10 Ala. Code § 11-65-44 ..................................................................... 9 Ala. Code § 13A-12-200.5 ............................................................. 8 Ala. Code § 13A-12-3 ................................................................. .10 Ala. Code § 26-1-1 ......................................................................... 5 Ala. Code § 28-11-13 ................................................................... 10 Alaska Stat. 05.15.180......................................................................9 Alaska Stat. 11.76.100, .105 ........................................................ 10 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 5-512, -115 .................................................. 9 Ark. Code Ann. § 27-16-604 ......................................................... 6 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 607.........................................................20 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-2-104 ........................................................... 6 v Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-13-121 ................................................. 7 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-133c...........................................................19 D.C. Code Ann. § 50-1401.01 ..................................................... 10 Idaho Code 15-2-501 ..................................................................... 9 Illinois, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-10 ........................................... 10 Ind. Code 29-1-5-1 ......................................................................... 9 Ind. Code § 31-30-1-4.....................................................................21 Iowa Code Ann. §§ 633.264, .3 ..................................................... 9 Iowa Code Ann. §§ 99D.1, 99G.30 ................................................ 9 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-101 ............................................................... 9 Kan. Stat. Ann. §