Louisiana follows the rule of Teague v. Lane. Miller is a procedural rule, not a substantive one, and it does not fall within the small (extinct?) class of precedents deemed "watershed" rules.
The case is State v. Tate, 2012-OK-2763.
Three men sentenced as teenagers to life in prison without parole will have an opportunity to convince federal judges they should be resentenced following a U.S. Supreme Court decision saying that practice is unconstitutional.First, it should be noted that the Supreme Court did not "say that practice is unconstitutional." It said that having that sentence mandated by law, without discretion in the sentencer to opt for a lower sentence on the individual facts of the case, is unconstitutional.
The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday the men can file appeals to their state sentences to determine whether the Supreme Court's decision applies in their cases.
"I've never experienced anything like it," CNN correspondent Poppy Harlow said live outside the juvenile court in Steubenville. "It was incredibly emotional--incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believe their life fell apart."******************************
[Candy] Crowley then discussed the case with CNN legal contributor Paul Callan.
"You know, Paul, a 16 year old now just sobbing in court, regardless of what big football players they are, still sound like 16 year olds," Crowley said. "The thing is, when you listen to it and you realize that they could stay until they're 21, they are going to get credit for time served. What's the lasting effect, though, on two young men being found guilty in juvenile court of rape, essentially?"
Enough is enough, so some of the response was:
"One way to report on the outcome of a rape trial is to discuss the legal ramifications of the decision or the effect the proceedings may have on the life of the victim," Gawker's Mallory Ortberg wrote. "Another angle reporters can take is to publicly worry about the 'promising future' of the convicted rapists, now less promising as a direct result of their choice to rape someone. Reporters at CNN today chose the latter technique."
One might hope that sobbing over criminals will draw liberals' rebuke in more than just rape cases, with their Politically Correct undertow. We shall see.
Abstract: For almost a decade, activists have asserted that, through the mechanism of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments," international law either forbids or constrains states from exposing the roughest juvenile criminals to the toughest sentences. Relying in part on those arguments, the Supreme Court of the United States has diminished sentencing options, for adult and juvenile offenders alike, at every turn. However, in Miller v. Alabama, foreign and international law are conspicuous only for their absence. This may signal a welcome shift in the Court's jurisprudence. Activists will no doubt continue to cite foreign and international sources in making their cases against domestic sentencing practices, but Miller at least suggests that the Court has grown wary of such arguments.
Nearly one of every two California youth convicted of murder did not actually kill the victim but were lookouts or were participating in another felony, such as robbery, when the homicide took place, according to Yee.Note it says "convicted of murder" not "sentenced to life without parole." The former is irrelevant and the latter would be false. But a lot of people don't get the distinction.