Reasonable Juvenile

Important Amicus Brief Regarding Police Stops

Today, the SJC heard argument in Commonwealth v. Tykorie Evelyn, an important case regarding police stops in so-called “high crime” areas where residents may seek to avoid contact with the police out of nervousness or fear, not consciousness of guilt. As co-chair of the MACDL Amicus Committee, Attorney Wood was proud to help pull together and assist a great team from Foley Hoag consisting of Anthony Mirenda, Neil Austin, Rachel Hutchinson, and Ned Melanson. Their brief powerfully argues, among other things, that nervousness or lack of engagement by a black teenager during a police encounter is not indicative of criminality. You can read the brief here.

Attorney Jellison Made Partner

Wood & Nathanson is proud to announce that Eva Jellison has been made a partner in the firm. Attorney Jellison’s work on the cutting edge of juvenile and appellate defense includes advocacy for the adoption of a “reasonable juvenile” standard for evaluation of juveniles’ mental states, retroactive application of juvenile justice reforms, and access to post-conviction DNA testing.

New Blog Post on Michelle Carter Decision

Wood & Nathanson’s Eva Jellison filed an amicus brief on behalf of CPCS and MACDL in the Michelle Carter “manslaughter by texting” case. In it, she argued for the application of a reasonable juvenile standard whenever the criminal law imposes a “reasonable person” standard on juveniles. The SJC avoided deciding the question. Read our analysis here in our new blog post.

SJC Avoids Adopting "Reasonable Juvenile" Standard

n Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter, the Supreme Judicial Court declined to decide whether all legal standards involving a "reasonable person" should be applied against children by assessing what a reasonable juvenile of the same age would have done in the same circumstances. Trial attorneys should continue to request a reasonable juvenile instruction in any appropriate case and in bench trials should argue for the judge to apply a reasonable juvenile standard in closing. Given what we know about those age 18-25, trial attorneys should also consider asking for a reasonable person of the same age instruction and putting in an expert to explain brain science in the emerging adult population.