With the news coming out of Washington D.C, that the US Supreme Court announced they will hear Toca v. Louisiana, which will make their decision of June 25, 2012, "Banning Sentences of Juveniles in Prison for Life Without Parole, as a violation of their Constitutional rights under the 8th Amendment. 20 US States have Retro-activated to when the Inmates committed the crime and Juveniles that were placed in Adult facilities for unfair sentences would be eligible for re-sentencing.
Although Idaho Judges have the Discretion in Sentencing a Juvenile of a crime such as Murder, and the Supreme Court in their June 25, 2012 decision did not ban completely Juvenile Life Without Parole, the fact that Mandatory Sentencing IS a violation of a youth offenders 8th Amendment Rights, should not stop the State of Idaho from doing away with Life Without Parole for Juveniles.
In their Decision, the Supreme Court said.
(a) The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment “guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560. That right “flows from the basic ‘precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned’ ” to both the offender and the offense. Ibid.
Two strands of precedent reflecting the concern with proportionate punishment come together here. The first has adopted categorical bans on sentencing practices based on mismatches between the culpability of a class of offenders and the severity of a penalty. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407. Several cases in this group have specially focused on juvenile offenders, because of their lesser culpability. Thus, Roper v. Simmons held that the Eighth Amendment bars capital punishment for children, and Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, concluded that the Amendment prohibits a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile convicted of a nonhomicide offense. Graham further likened life without parole for juveniles to the death penalty, thereby evoking a second line of cases. In those decisions, this Court has required sentencing authorities to consider the characteristics of a defendant and the details of his offense before sentencing him to death. See, e.g., Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (plurality opinion). Here, the confluence of these two lines of precedent leads to the conclusion that mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment.
(2) The States next argue that courts and prosecutors sufficiently consider a juvenile defendant’s age, as well as his background and the circumstances of his crime, when deciding whether to try him as an adult. But this argument ignores that many States use mandatory transfer systems. In addition, some lodge the decision in the hands of the prosecutors, rather than courts. And even where judges have transfer-stage discretion, it has limited utility, because the decision maker typically will have only partial information about the child or the circumstances of his offense. Finally, because of the limited sentencing options in some juvenile courts, the transfer decision may present a choice between a light sentence as a juvenile and standard sentencing as an adult. It cannot substitute for discretion at post trial sentencing. Pp. 25−27.
Upon hours of research by members of the Juvenile Justice Advocates of the World, we have come to the conclusion that Torey Michael Adamcik did NOT receive a fair trial:
(1) The trial Attorneys did not give Torey competent representation. When the Adamcik’s hired the firm, the night that they took Torey into the Police Station for the second interview, the Attorneys were “To busy to go with them, and instructed Sean and Shannon to refuse to allow Torey to answer questions until they could be present.
a. However the Police bullied and harassed the Adamcik’s and told them that IF they could not Interview Torey that night, he would be taken into custody, giving the feeling that IF Torey talked and told them about the night in question, he would go home with them, as they believed that Torey was innocent.
b. The Police did not tell them that Brian had already confessed and was locked up, and had led them to the evidence in Black Rock Canyon.
c. Sean and Shannon on several Occasions that day told the detectives that they did not want to bring Torey in without Legal Counsel and had an appointment later that afternoon, and would then contact them when they had set up a time with the Attorney’s to be there with Torey.
d. The Detectives refused to hear this and continued to threaten to lock Torey up, UNLESS he came into the Police Station to be interviewed.
e. The Attorneys took the case but were too busy to accompany them to the Police Station, where again Shannon and Sean invoked Torey’s right to counsel.
f. The Detectives finally convinced the Adamcik’s that this was JUST and interview as Torey was one of the last to have seen Cassie alive, and needed help with their investigation to apprehend the “person or persons” involved.
g. The Adamciks finally gave in, The Detectives read Torey his Miranda Warning, and Torey signed the waiver. The Detectives then began to question Torey in Sean and Shannon’s presence. About an hour into the interview, Torey said, I would like to talk to my attorney, so the Detectives stopped the questioning, took Torey to another room and left him by himself. Shannon left to go pick up their younger son at his practice, and the Detectives talked to Sean, and told him that they KNEW Torey was lying to them and Sean needed to get him to tell the Truth. We have not been able to determine how long this was, BUT, we do know that Sean did not want to go back in until after Shannon got back, but the Detectives kept pushing. Finally Sean got them to go in and talk to Torey and then they all went back to the Interview room, where the Detectives did not question Torey, but rather told Sean things, and then Sean would turn to Torey and ask, “is this right”, or “Did you see anyone out there that could have done this”, along with a bunch of other questions. There is no record that they re-mirandized Torey, nor that Torey signed another waiver, that we have been able to find.
(2) The Defense team did not subpoena the evidence for independent testing.
(3) The Defense did not call expert witnesses to refute the Prosecution.
(4) The Defense did not call Torey to explain in his own words the evidence against him.
(5) The Defense let the Jury believe that they would hear from the Psychologist that evaluated Torey, but instead after just a couple of witnesses the Defense rested.
a. If the Psychologist had been allowed to Testify, the Jury would have heard him say: "Adamcik is immature for his age, saying the average adolescent doesn't have a fully developed frontal brain lobe - the part of the brain determined to control compulsion - and that the teen was even further behind others of his age.”
“Adamcik is intellectually less mature than we would expect a 17-year-old to be.”
“Adamcik would be a very low risk to re-offend and called him a good candidate for rehabilitation, unless he were sent to prison.”
“All the psychological tests show no evidence that would suggest a pathological personality.”
“Adamcik needs mental health care for the suicidal thoughts he's currently harboring and education and time to develop his adult brain capacity. Prison would inhibit the ability to rehabilitate Adamcik" (Hancock 2007)
So we the undersigned Respectfully Demand that Torey Michael Adamcik have his current conviction overturned, and the case sent back to the Trial Court for a new trial and IF convicted, resentenced to a sentence with possible Parole.
Sincerely
Juvenile Justice Advocates of the World
.png)
