Do you have anything to offer on the case?
I read the case. It is pretty straightforward.
15 year old (JONES) lives with his grandparents. Gets caught with his girlfriend in his bedroom. Family argment ensues and settles down. Kid says to girlfriend "gonna hurt Grampa." Another family fight ensues later in the same day. Kid stabs Grampa 8 times with 2 knives (first one broke) and lets him bleed out. When found by cops later, gives a fake name, but makes an admission (Cop finds a knife on him and asks if its the one he used to kill Grampa - kid says he already got rid of that one.)
Jury has to decide between murder and lesser-included manslaughter. Jury said "murder." Under state law at the time "Life Without Parole" was a "mandatory" sentence. No judicial/"sentencer" discretion.
He argued on appeal that "mandatory" was unconstitutional. While his appeal was pending, SCOTUS decided that mandatory LWOP was unconstituional as to kids under 18. That case was MILLER.
MILLER required a "sentencer" (sometimes that is a judge - sometimes a jury - depends on state law) to have discretion when sentencing a juvenile. It was applied retroactively to Jones. He got re-sentenced.
Jones lawyers argued that factors such as his age and the evidence DID NOT mean the kid was irreparably corrupt, so he should get less than LWOP. Judge said "I have discretion to do that, but I won't - the factors regarding his CULPABILITY mitigate for LWOP." (All quotes here are paraphrased.)
This appeal that CNN says was a "staggering deviation" from precedent was based on an argument that under MILLER the sentencer MUST make a specific finding that the juvenile is NOT permanently incorrigible in order to use LWOP. Can't just hear and not accept that argument - must make a specific finding.
SCOTUS agreed instead with the State, i.e. that MILLER does not require that finding, and only requires that the sentencer have some discretion. Can ansd should hear things like that - does not have to make a specific finding based on a SCOTUS-imposed set of factors/rules.
In other words, and to paraphrase Wilford Brimley - "Miller don't say that and the right don't exist."
To the contrary, Miller does what a lot of these kinds of cases do - they don't set out a specific list of rules. They set out a broad rule and let the states/courts use discretion to flesh it out based on the specific and differing facts of each case under different laws in different states, with only a Constitutional umbrella setting the outer limits.
Miller requires/allows the sentencer to consider "an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics" and the “diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change.” (Real quotes.) That procedure/list of factors allegedly ensures that the sentencer affords individualized consideration to, among other things, a defendant’s “chronological age and its hallmark features. - which was the basis for the desired rule.
The kid's lawyer's argued for rules that arose out of death penalty cases. Dumb move. Let's the Court say "this isn't a death penalty cases - it a LWOP case - those cases can't don't shouldn't won't control." (As my mentor instructed me once - Lesson No. 1 - this is the United States - everybody is entitled to a bad lawyer.)
They flowered it all up so the clerks could try and impress guys like Goat, but that's the basics. The law required a discretionary sentence - the Mississippi trial court used discretion.
Pick any dissent and use it to call people radical and extreme names, CNN wil hire you.
CNN tried to act smart when they are really stupid, but that's Ok - its propaganda recepticles are stupid too.
PACK THAT COURT!