5th Amendment
On August 29, 2024, the Gault Center hosted a National Youth Defense Townhall focused on the role of youth defenders in transforming the juvenile legal system. The Townhall outlined a theory of change rooted in cultivating critical connections to harness our collective power to transform systems of harm and punishment. In attendance were nearly 200…
The American Bar Association (ABA) passed a resolution urging all governmental authorities to enact laws and policies prohibiting police from utilizing deceptive practices during youth interrogations. Relying on adolescent development research and recognizing the inherent vulnerabilities of youth during police interrogations, the ABA outlines that “it is beyond dispute that interrogations of adolescents by law…
Challenging the Status Quo: Mobilizing Youth Defense Teams to Uphold Youth Rights & Uproot Injustice
This Racial Justice Webinar was hosted by the Gault Center and Georgetown Law’s Juvenile Justice Clinic & Initiative on May 29, 2024. The webinar focused on a collective call to action for the youth defense community to transform the juvenile legal system by centering youth and their constitutional rights to freedom, liberty, and equality. This…
This checklist can be used to assess the presence of constitutional violations throughout the course of a client’s case. Please refer to the National Youth Defense Systems Standards and their accompanying User Guide for litigation strategies to challenge potential constitutional violations noted in this checklist.
This User Guide provides advocates with a step-by-step outline of how to actualize the vision of the National Youth Defense System Standards to equip and invest in youth defense teams to fight for the liberation of all youth. The User Guide outlines constitutional rights detailed in the System Standards, provides a checklist to assess the…
Outlines steps that states must take to comply with the minimum requirements of the U.S. Constitution to protect the rights of youth facing deprivations of liberty.
The Court considers a question of first impression — whether a criminal defendant must be provided in-person interpreting services, rather than video remote interpreting (VRI) services, at his jury trial.
The landmark case Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the United States Supreme Court required law enforcement agencies to advise all suspects of their “Miranda warnings,” or Constitutional protections, prior to interrogation. Previous research demonstrates that the Miranda warnings in the United States are largely unregulated and highlights how inadequate translations can impact comprehensibility. The present study…
