Docket nos. 14-280 End date 2016 | Citations 577 U.S. ___ (more) | |
 | ||
Full case name Henry Montgomery, Petitioner v. Louisiana Prior history motion to correct and illegal sentence denied, Miller held to be not retroactive Majority Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan Dissent Scalia, joined by Thomas, Alito | ||
Montgomery v louisiana
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that its previous ruling in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), that a mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to persons convicted of murder committed as juveniles, should be applied retroactively. This decision potentially affects up to 2,300 cases nationwide.
Contents
- Montgomery v louisiana
- Montgomery v louisiana oral argument october 13 2015
- Issue
- Petitioner
- Opinion of the Court
- References
This case is one in a series since 2005 that have mitigated the harshness of sentencing of juveniles and persons who committed crimes as juveniles. It is based in part on scientific evidence showing that juvenile brains are not equivalent to those of adults.
Montgomery v louisiana oral argument october 13 2015
Issue
In 2005, the US Supreme court established in Roper v. Simmons that the death penalty for children under 18 was unconstitutional. In 2010, in Graham v. Florida, the court ruled that a mandatory life sentence without parole was unconstitutional for persons who committed non-murder crimes as juveniles.
Two years later, in Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Court decided that mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to persons who committed the crime as juveniles.
Petitioner
The plaintiff, Henry Montgomery, committed a murder in 1963 when he was 17; as of 2015 he is 69. He has become a model member of the prison community, serving as a coach on the prison boxing team, working in the prison’s silk-screen program, and offering advice to younger inmates.
Opinion of the Court
On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court voted 6–3 in favor of applying the Miller v. Alabama ruling retroactively. Persons previously given automatic life sentences with no chance of parole for crimes committed as juveniles must have their cases reviewed for re-sentencing or be considered for parole. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that "prisoners like Montgomery must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored." Kennedy said the decision was founded on substantive grounds, based "on the diminished culpability of all juvenile offenders, who are, he said, immature, susceptible to peer pressure and capable of change. Very few, he said, are incorrigible. But he added that as a general matter the punishment was out of bounds."
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas dissented. Scalia wrote in the dissenting opinion that Kennedy had twisted the language in the Miller decision to make it sound categorical when it merely required a new sentencing procedure. Scalia also stated that it would be very difficult for judges and juries to decide whether defendants were incorrigible decades after they were originally sentenced. Thomas filed a second dissenting opinion, stating that the decision "repudiates established principles of finality".