The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2012 | Page 12

slip
Miller v. Alabama
By Andres Marcuse-Gonzalez

T

he Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Miller that the defense of Evan Miller based the two questions that
v. Alabama 1 and its connected case Jackson v. it presented to the court: “1. Does the imposition of a lifeHobbs2 set a new precedent for sentencing schemes without-parole sentence on a 14-year-old child convicted of
concerning minors convicted of murder: the sentence of homicide violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’
life without parole cannot be made mandatory by a state prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments?” and
in such a case. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court “2. Does such a sentence violate the Eighth and Fourteenth
deemed that to make such a sentence
Amendments when it is imposed upon
mandatory was a violation of the 8th
a 14-year-old child as a result of a
Amendment clause that bans “cruel
mandatory sentencing scheme that
and unusual punishment”; a mandatory
categorically precludes consideration
sentence would not allow any external
of the offender’s young age or any
circumstances that might exist (i.e.
other mitigating circumstances?” It is
a felony murder case) to impact the
the second question that would later
judge’s decision. The decision is a
be the focus of the Supreme Court’s
compromise: it does not place a flat
decision.
ban on the sentence in question (the

original goal of the defense) nor does
The majority decision, which was
it uphold the constitutionality of such a
written by the Supreme Court’s most
law that would make it mandatory on
recently appointed member Elena
the grounds that “Death is different”
Kagan, finds the middle ground
(this being the opinion of Justice
between the goals of the defense
Scalia who voted with the minority).
and the arguments presented in the
I believe that the decision gives
dissenting opinion. The defense of
judges the opportunity to exercise
Evan Miller was seeking a flat ban on
judicial discretion; this discretion is
any sentencing scheme that makes life
critical in murder cases where the
without parole mandatory for youths
future of a youth could be decided by
charged with murder. The minority
Andres Marcuse-Gonzalez at the
circumstances which were beyond
opinion, written by Chief Justice
June 15, 2012 Kick-Off Breakfast
his/her control. The public must trust
John Roberts, argues that if a youth
for the Atlanta Bar Association
that our judges will have the logic
commits the “worst of crimes” he/she
Summer Law Internship Program
necessary to decide whether or not a
should be held as legally responsible
hosted by Alston & Bird.
youth should be held fully responsible
as anyone else. The resulting opinion
for his/her actions. Judicial discretion
is a compromise: it does not rule out
is critical in a country that claims to have the fairest legal the sentence of life without parole for a minor charged with
system in the world.
murder but rather leaves it to the judge to decide whether
there are any extenuating circumstances which might make
On July 15, 2003, following a drug deal with Miller’s mother, such a sentence unreasonable. In essence, it gives judges
Evan Miller and Colby Smith went with Mr. Cole Cannon to the power of judicial discretion in deciding the fates of youths
his home where he gave the boys alcohol and marijuana. charged with murder. The decision serves as an extension
Miller consumed almost a fifth of whiskey and two Klonopin3 to the opinions previously held in the 2005 case of Roper v.
pills along with the marijuana. At a certain mom ent during Simmons4 , which eliminated the death penalty for juvenile
the night, a fight began. According to the testimonies of the offenders, and the 2012 case of Graham v. Florida5 which
two boys, Mr. Cannon initiated the altercation by grabbing ruled out life-without-parole for minors convicted of nonEvan Miller’s throat. The boys proceeded to beat him over homicide crimes.
the head with a baseball bat before setting his home on fire
and leaving him to die.
The key to any analysis of the court’s decision is the case
connected to Miller v. Alabama: Jackson v. Hobbs. Kuntrell
Evan Miller was indicted with two counts of capital murder; Jackson attempted to rob a video store in Arkansas with the
the jury trial resulted in him being convicted of capital murder help of two accomplices. One of the older accomplices shot
in the course of an arson. That very day he was sentenced to and killed the store clerk. Jackson was charged with felony
life in prison without parole; the sentence was the result of a murder which meant that he, by law, would get life without
state law requiring such a punishment. It is on this mandate parole despite him not having killed the woman himself. A
12

THE ATLANTA LAWYER

August/September 2012

The Official News Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association