The state is asking the nation’s highest court to review the Oregon Supreme Court’s recent decision to scratch the 67-year-sentences handed down to two brothers for the murders they committed as teenagers.
Following a landmark 2012 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that found mandatory life-without-parole sentences for young offenders unconstitutional, the Oregon court ruled in May that twins Lydell Marcus White and Laycell Tornee White should be resentenced for their 1993 killing of an elderly Salem couple.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review that ruling – essentially, final word on whether the high court’s 2012 findings should apply to cases like the White’s, which involve non-mandatory sentences.
It’s a similar question to one the justices are already pondering. In October, the court is expected to rule on whether a life sentence handed down to Lee Boyd Malvo, an accomplice in the 2002 D.C. sniper attacks, when he was 17 still stands.
Rosenblum’s petitions aim to link the Oregon cases with the Malvo case, meaning that whatever decision the judges land on this fall will also apply to the White brothers.
“This will mean that the White brothers are treated the same as other juvenile offenders in Oregon who were sentenced a long time ago,” said Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum in a statement to OPB. “I also believe strongly that the family of the victims involved in this horrific crime should not have to relive the trauma they have experienced if it is not absolutely necessary.”
Some criminal justice advocates insist the county courthouse is the correct place to decide the men’s sentence. Asking the Supreme Court to weigh in, they warn, could have negative implications for juvenile justice reform nationwide.
“The White Brothers cases don’t need to be up there,” says Bobbin Singh, the executive director of the Oregon Justice Resource Center. “It’s completely discretionary. It didn’t need to happen.”
Both Singh and Aliza Kaplan, the director of Lewis & Clark's Criminal Justice Reform Clinic, said they found Rosenblum's petition to be a "confusing" and "contradictory" shift in tactic, considering her testimony earlier this year in support of SB 1008, which enacted sweeping juvenile justice reform.
Kaplan, who filed a brief in support of the twins to the Oregon Supreme Court, said she felt the petition was the latest abandonment of progressive ideals from the Attorney General, noting that Rosenblum recently sounded alarm bells to the U.S. Supreme Court, in defense of Oregon's controversial non-unanimous jury trials.
“All these positions in the court that she’s taking are contrary to what a progressive attorney general should be doing,” she said.
Asked to respond to accusations that her petition was contradictory, Rosenblum underscored that she has consistently taken the position that “the criminal justice system should not automatically treat children like adults.” But Rosenblum contends that, in the case of the White brothers, the judge had made his own determination after weighing the relevant factors.
