By Cynthia Price
Legal News
Imagine you are a 16-year-old student and your aunt, who is helping write an amicus brief on an important case before the Michigan Supreme Court, discusses with you what is at stake in the matter. You become passionate about the issue and repercussions of the decision. What do you do?
If you are Matilyn Sarosi, you write your own amicus brief, despite the steep learning curve that entails.
And then you get 450 of the 530 students in your school, in this case the private Catholic academy Father Gabriel Richard High School in Ann Arbor, to sign on.
Young Matilyn figured she knew something about the case coming up before the court in February because it concerns the life sentences given to juveniles, and she and her classmates are juveniles.
The United States Supreme Court decided in Miller v. Alabama, in 2012, that it is unconstitutional for states to impose mandatory life sentences without possibility of parole as punishment for crimes committed by juveniles. The Miller decision did not preclude such sentences but imposed some standards on sentencing judges, including weighing “the degree of responsibility the youth was capable of exercising, and assess[ing] that youth’s chances to become rehabilitated” (SCOTUS blog).
The decision begs the question: what can be done about those juveniles who already have such life sentences? Should the decision be considered retroactive, and apply to the 363 juvenile lifers in Michigan?
The high court of the land provided no clear guidance on that question.
Once the students at Father Gabriel Richard agreed to sign on, Matilyn faced another problem: as a non-lawyer, she is not allowed to submit such a brief to the court.
Enter Jon Muth of Miller Johnson.
The amicus brief on which Matilyn’s aunt MaryAnn Sarosi was working was one that former Gov. William Milliken initiated on behalf of a variety of retired judges, U.S. district attorneys, prosecutors, former Bar leaders, law school deans and professors, and others. The Supreme Court listing calls it “Amicus Brief by Ad Hoc Committee of Retired Judges et al.”
Several distinguished area attorneys and judges signed on to that brief: Hon. Janet Haynes, Hon. H. David Soet, James Brady, Donald A. Davis, Scott Brinkmeyer, Bruce Neckers, and Muth.
In the course of asking him to consider becoming one of the amici in that brief, MaryAnn Sarosi discussed her niece’s situation with Muth.
“I knew if Matilyn was going to follow through with this she would need to have somebody filing it for her,” she says. “He was receptive right away, thinking that the students’ perspective was important, but when he got the actual brief, I think he was really impressed.”
The Michigan Supreme Court justices during oral arguments indicated that they will issue their decision based on whether Miller is considered substantive or procedural, as set out in Teague v. Lane (1989) and elsewhere. Attorneys for the state argued that Miller makes only a procedural change, and therefore should not be applied retroactively; attorneys for the defendants in the three cases combined for the court’s review, People v. Raymond Carp, People v. Cortez Davis, and People v. Dakotah Eliason, claim that Miller represents a substantive change.
But many people outside the court system see the conflict differently.
In their view, the question is whether it is fair for some juveniles to be excluded from the prohibition against mandatory life without parole, while others have not been. By extension, they see this as calling into question their belief that juveniles are capable of deep change and, therefore, rehabilitation.
This is at the heart of Matilyn Sarosi’s amicus brief. She spent hours and hours of her free time writing it, consulting her school’s leadership, and engaging her classmates — which involved communicating with their parents and giving no fewer than 13 in-school presentations.
As to why, she says, “Well, I think a big factor was that I and my classmates are peers to these individuals, and reflecting on our lives, so many of these individuals were our age when they were sentenced. I kept thinking about the fact that there was no hope for them. Also, just logically I think the Supreme Court has said this is not OK, so if it’s wrong, shouldn’t it apply backwards?”
Moreover, she points out, “...it fits beautifully with the message of Catholic social teaching and Catholic social justice.”
Matilyn’s mother Kimm Sarosi added, “As Catholics, we believe that people can change for the better.”
And Matilyn continues in her mature and articulate way, “Deep down, we have to believe that somehow people are able to change and we do have a capacity for redemption.”
Matilyn wrote the brief, citing court cases and other scholarly works, to make that very point, particularly in the context of how the teenage brain works and the potential for growth.
Mike Sarosi, her dad, said that he was in full agreement, based on his faith, but he worried chiefly about one thing: “We all thought about the families of the victims.”
Indeed, several of the victims’ family members submitted their own amicus brief. The victims’ brief, which Justice Mary Beth Kelly called “compelling” during oral argument, was also signed by several victims’ rights organizations.
All of Matilyn’s AP History classmates attended the court’s oral arguments in February. She had many thoughts about the likely outcome, but recognizes that the final decision will probably return to the U.S. Supreme Court, since states have come to different conclusions about retroactivity.
“Of the four states having the most juvenile lifers, Pennsylvania has ruled it’s not retroactive, Florida has said yes, Louisiana said no, and Michigan is just deciding,” the young researcher says. “But other large states, like Texas and Illinois, have made it retroactive.”
Matilyn has been touched by the outpouring of gratitude from prisoners for her involvement.
Matilyn is not sure about her future career but says she will think about the law. “Going into this I didn’t think so, but now I’m considering it,” she says. “This has certainly opened my eyes.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
