Defending "Emerging Adults"

We are swiftly coming upon twenty years since the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roper v. Simmons. In Roper, the Supreme Court finally embraced scientific research documenting key neurological differences between the still-developing brains of adolescents and fully matured brains of adults, leading to a sea-change in how children under 18 are sentenced in this country.  These key neurological differences include lack of impulse control, greater risk-taking in pursuit of rewards, increased susceptibility to peer influence, and capacity for change. The upshot of this research was the conclusion that children under 18 are less morally culpable than adults and more amenable to rehabilitation than adults.

Most attorneys are aware that the constitution now protects their clients under 18 from receiving mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole, but what about a client who was 18 and one day old? And what about clients who are 19 or 20 years old? Recently, scientists have confirmed what we have known all along: brains do not miraculously mature the moment a child turns 18. Indeed, substantial research now confirms that individuals aged 18-24 (and likely beyond)—a group often referred to as “emerging adults”—possess the same four neurological differences that led to the prohibition on mandatory life without parole sentences for children under 18.   

The significance of this new research is obvious: now is the perfect opportunity for Colorado practitioners to push for a natural extension of the Supreme Court’s landmark sentencing cases to the emerging adult population, as other states have already done. Earlier this year, the Massachusetts supreme court banned all life without parole sentences——for individuals aged 18 to 20 years old, and the Michigan Supreme Court is poised to reach a similar conclusion next year.

But why focus only on sentencing when you can prevent a case from ever proceeding so far? Importantly, this same research can be useful beyond sentencing, albeit with due regard for the potential pitfalls created by Colorado’s unintuitive “mental condition” statute, which seems to rear its ugly head anytime the word “brain” is mentioned.

From plea negotiations to motions practice, to defending charges at trial, and at sentencing, the team at 2nd-Chair is here to help you leverage this new research in zealous defense of your emerging adult clients and navigate the complex procedural hurdles that may arise along the way.