Jury Sentencing and Juveniles: Eighth Amendment Limits and Sixth Amendment Rights

INTRODUCTIONIn three recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment places categorical limits on the severity of sentences that may be imposed on individuals whose crimes occurred when they were under the age of eighteen.1 First, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision Roper v. Simmons created an absolute ceiling on punishment for juveniles by holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for such offenders. 2 In 2010, the Court in Graham v. Florida lowered the maximum available penalty for a particular category of juvenile offenders: Those who commit nonhomicide offenses may not receive life-without-parole sentences and must have a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation."3 Most recently, in its 2012 decision Miller v. Alabama, the Court held that even juvenile homicide offenders cannot automatically receive life-without-parole sentences under the Eighth Amendment but must have "individualized" sentencing hearings that take into account the "mitigating qualities of youth" and the ways in which these qualities "counsel against" life-without-parole sentences.4 Miller stressed that life without parole should be "uncommon" in juvenile homicide cases and may be imposed only in those "rare" instances in which the sentencer determines that the juvenile's crime reflects "irreparable corruption."5 Thus, although Roper places an absolute ceiling on punishment for juveniles (i.e., no death penalty for any juvenile), Graham and Miller lower the punishment ceiling further for some categories of juveniles.6States are now grappling with how to comply with Graham and Miller. Sixteen states have enacted legislation responding to these decisions, and legislation is being considered in other states.7 State Supreme Courts in Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming have recently held that Miller applies retroactively, and inmates are preparing for resentencing hearings.8 With old cases being remanded for resentencing hearings and new cases entering the system, courts must conduct sentencing proceedings that comply with constitutional requirements. Although much has been written about Graham and Miller,9 scholars have not addressed a critical question raised by these cases: In states that have retained life without parole as a possible penalty for juveniles, who is the sentencer? Can a judge decide that a particular juvenile deserves a life-without-parole sentence or does the Constitution give juveniles the right to have a jury make that determination?Graham and Miller bring to the forefront important questions about the allocation of sentencing authority in the justice system. In particular, how do Eighth Amendment categorical limits on sentences interact with Sixth Amendment jury trial rights?10 Does an Eighth Amendment limit operate in the same manner as a statutory maximum for an offense and thus set a ceiling on a sentence that cannot be raised absent a jury finding?Under the Court's recent Sixth Amendment cases, a judge may not make factual findings that expose a defendant to a sentence above the maximum sentence authorized by the jury's verdict. "When a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts 'which the law makes essential to the punishment,' and the judge exceeds his proper authority."11 In other words, if an enhanced sentence is authorized only if certain facts are established, then a defendant may be exposed to the enhanced sentence only if a jury finds those facts.12 Moreover, the jury must find those facts beyond a reasonable doubt.13 These principles apply not only where a maximum sentence is set by statute, but also where a presumptive maximum sentence is set by sentencing guidelines promulgated by a sentencing commission.14 They also extend to capital cases: The Sixth Amendment requires that a jury find beyond a reasonable doubt the facts that make a defendant eligible for the death penalty under applicable state statutory provisions. …