Does the Constitution allow a teenager to be sentenced to die in prison for a pair of armed robberies committed on a single day, in which no one was seriously injured?
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it’s unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile who did not commit homicide to life in prison without parole, but the Missouri courts say this rule doesn’t apply if the juvenile is sentenced for multiple crimes. The ACLU is taking this issue to the Supreme Court on behalf of Bobby Bostic, who was sentenced to 241 years in prison for non-homicide crimes he committed when he was 16.
On Dec. 12, 1995, Bobby and an 18-year-old friend committed a pair of armed robberies. Two people were shot at, but no one was seriously injured. Prosecutors charged Bobby with 18 separate counts, and a jury found him guilty on all of them.
The trial judge was absolutely clear during Bobby’s sentencing: Bobby would never be free again.
“You made your choice. You’re gonna have to live with your choice, and you’re gonna die with your choice because, Bobby Bostic, you will die in the Department of Corrections,” Circuit Judge Evelyn Baker told the teenager. “Do you understand that? Your mandatory date to go in front of the parole board will be the year 2201. Nobody in this room is going to be alive in the year 2201.”
The state probation and parole board eventually issued Bobby a parole eligibility date of 2091, when he will be 112 years old. Today, Bobby remains in prison with no hope of release.
In 2010, in Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment “prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.” While the decision does not guarantee that a child who does not commit homicide will eventually be released, it requires that the state provide a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.”
The Missouri Supreme Court and three other state high courts believe Graham only applies when a state uses the magic words “life without parole.” They ruled that there is no constitutional problem with sentencing a child who has not committed homicide to die in prison as long as the child was convicted of more than one crime and sentenced to consecutive term-of-year sentences.
But the constitutional flaw in the sentence imposed on Terrance Graham, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, was not that it was formally called “life in prison without parole.” It was that it denied a child who did not commit homicide “any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society.”
That’s exactly the flaw in Bobby Bostic’s sentence.
State prosecutors have substantial leeway in how they charge crimes. Here, the events of a single day led to 18 separate counts for robbery, armed criminal action, and other offenses. States should not be allowed to evade the principle set forth in Graham by sentencing a child to “100 years without parole” instead of “life without parole.” Similarly, they should not be able to slice one incident into many sub-offenses and sentence a child to consecutive term-of-year sentences that guarantee he will die in prison. In fact, the Supreme Court has already recognized that such a sentence is practically equivalent to “life without parole.” That proposition should make a decision in the Bostic case easy.
As Graham held, leaving a child who did not commit homicide to “die in prison without any meaningful opportunity to obtain release, no matter what he might do to demonstrate that the bad acts he committed as a teenager are not representative of his true character, even if he spends the next half century attempting to atone for his crimes and learn from his mistakes,” is cruel and unusual punishment.
Bobby Bostic should get a chance to show that crimes he committed as a kid do not define him. The Eighth Amendment demands nothing less.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Montana Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. MontanaHeld v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine. -
Texas Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2024
Free Speech
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic FreedomACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic Freedom
NEW YORK — In response to the anti-war protests happening at colleges across the country, and the disturbing arrests that have followed, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to leaders at both public and private universities. The letter states: “As you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.” Authored by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and National Legal Director David Cole, the letter offers university leaders five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected on campus: They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. They must protect students from targeted discriminatory harassment and violence, but may not penalize people for taking sides on the war in Gaza, even if expressed in deeply offensive terms. They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves. These rules must be applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. They must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort. They must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. The letter also informs university leaders of relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, ‘because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.’” The letter strongly advises university leaders to be “cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force in responding to protests, particularly against communities of color,” and that — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear — arresting peaceful protestors is likely to escalate, not calm, tensions on campus. The letter also reiterates that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic and that “physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech.” -
PodcastJan 2024
Juvenile Justice
It's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's StoryIt's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's Story