When do people become adults? The answer may determine who’s sentenced to life without parole.

Christopher Hicks was 19 when he lived in a trailer in Gillette with other teens and a charismatic 40-year-old man — a man who was facing charges for sexually assaulting his 16-year-old stepson. Hicks had been kicked out of his parents’ home in Arizona before traveling to Gillette, and that trailer was the last place he’d live before prison became his life.

In 2005, the older man pressured Hicks and an 18-year-old into murdering two people who would likely testify against him in an upcoming sexual assault trial, according to the Gillette News Record’s reporting . The older man told the teens they “owed him favors” after a marijuana deal went wrong, according to court filings.

Hicks assisted in both murders — helping choke a young man until he passed out (but not to death) and helping open a door to the house of another victim — leading to convictions of two counts of aiding and abetting and one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Each conviction came with a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison without parole.

Had he been a little younger, and therefore a juvenile in the eyes of the law, Hicks might have avoided a life sentence.

A growing body of neuroscience scrutinizing why the line between adolescence and adulthood is 18, when humans’ brains aren’t fully developed till the mid-20s, is part of what prompted a new attempt in the 6th Judicial District Court in Campbell County to give Hicks a chance at eventual freedom.

University of Wyoming law professor Lauren McLane, in collaboration with the UW Defender Aid Clinic, argues in a July filing that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for those aged 18-21 violate sections of both the Wyoming and U.S. constitutions.

The argument is based on how similar minors are to their slightly older counterparts, both in terms of neurodevelopment and — in some instances — the eyes of the law. The filing asks the judiciary to change what it sees as unconstitutional mandatory sentences for those under age 21, allowing potentially dozens of defendants like Hicks to get a hearing that considers their youth before sentencing.

Miller

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the landmark case Miller v. Alabama in 2012.

Building off of a few cases before it, Miller established that judges cannot hand down sentences of life in prison without parole for minors without taking their age into consideration. Citing the Eighth Amendment, the high court found the mandates amount to a cruel and unusual punishment.

Since that case, 28 states and Washington, D.C. , eliminated such sentences altogether, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other states must at least take the individual’s age into consideration before handing down such a sentence.

There have also been hundreds of challenges across the U.S. arguing the same protections should be extended to those between ages 18 and 21. As of 2022, the vast majority — if not all — challenges exclusively pointing to updated neuroscience and the Eighth Amendment failed.

“The data suggest that at present, Eighth Amendment arguments to categorically extend federal Miller protections to those 18 and above are unlikely to win,” a New York University Law Review article stated. “At the same time, however, state constitutions and state-level policy advocacy provide a path to expand constitutional protections for emerging adults.”

Some judges also found that drawing the line at 18 wasn’t just about neuroscience, but societal expectations, the review article states.

However, more recent challenges are focusing less on the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and focusing more on laws closer to home.

“I do think most of these [recent] cases are being grounded in their own state constitutions,” said Stephanie Tabashneck, founding director of the Center for Law, Brain and Behavior Neurolaw Library at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School.

In Wyoming, while McLane and the other authors argued the mandatory sentences for young adults violated the U.S. Constitution, they also say the state constitution offers more robust, comprehensive protections than the federal one.

The case points to sections of the Wyoming Constitution that provide  protections similar — though notably different — to the federal Constitution’s equality and punishment provisions.

“I just think we’re uniquely situated by our case law and our constitutional language,” McLane told WyoFile.

Like most Miller arguments across the country, the filing also presents neurobiology’s finding that those ages 18-21 have more similarities to teens than older adults. That means they’re more susceptible to making poor decisions under emotional distress — but on the positive side, there’s a heightened ability for rehabilitation and growth as the brain finishes developing, the filing argues.

“A sentence to life without the possibility of parole does not serve any reformative or rehabilitative purposes and thus is a disproportionately egregious sentence for adolescents up to the age 21,” the filing states.

The filing also states that there is some additional legal oversight and support for young adults, including in Wyoming. For example, if someone is committed to the boys’ school or girls’ school in Wyoming, the court “maintains jurisdiction until the individual reaches 21 years-old, unless otherwise discharged,” the filing stated.

There are also laws that view those under age 21 differently, like the legal drinking age or, more recently, the ability to buy tobacco products. Meanwhile, car rental rates are more expensive for those under 25 — the approximate age when the human brain is fully mature. And under the Affordable Care Act, young adults are also allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance until 26.

But why not argue to expand Miller’s influence all the way to 25 or 26?

For McLane, the answer has to do in part with Wyoming, itself: The state likely isn’t ready to change its legal definitions of adulthood that much.

“I’m not super confident that the people of Wyoming — judges, the justices, even practitioners — are quite ready for that,” she said.

The filing notes that 21 was the age of adulthood for hundreds of years under English common law, later adopted by a fledgling United States. But in 1942, Congress lowered the conscription age to 18. And in 1971, the age likewise fell to allow 18-year-olds to vote.

But, as the New York Law Review article found, the judiciary in some states has simply felt it wasn’t that branch of government’s job to correct such sentences whether they’re unconstitutional or not.

Today’s landscape

While many of these challenges to extend Miller have failed — including a few previous cases in Wyoming — there have been some key wins.

Washington allowed Miller protections for those up to age 21 there in the case State v. Monschke. However, there have been some more recent state cases to put that into question.

“Washington has been a total telenovela,” Tabashneck said.

But while Washington’s decision appears to be on less solid ground, Massachusetts has made what is arguably the most supportive backing to expand Miller, citing neuroscience. There, it is now illegal to sentence someone younger than 21 to life in prison without a possibility for parole.

However, in the Wyoming case, plaintiffs are simply arguing for the potential to reduce a life sentence based on someone’s age being under 21.

Still, many arguments are falling flat across the U.S. But even if Wyoming doesn’t accept this argument today, Tabashneck cautions that there has been a slow shift in favor of accepting neuroscience regarding young adults.

“If Wyoming says that this is not consistent with constitutional law, that doesn’t mean that five years from now, they might make a different decision,” Tabashneck said. “The science is extremely strong.”

What’s next?

A judge in Campbell County will consider this case first, then it may work its way up to the state Supreme Court.

Either way, if Hicks and his attorneys win, they want him to get a new hearing that could affect his three concurrent life sentences.

Alongside Hicks, about 2% of the Wyoming Department of Corrections prison population — or 47 people — were incarcerated on life sentences when they were between 14 and 21 years old. Some in that group may have already been released, paroled or died, however.

If this legal challenge fails, McLane said efforts will likely turn to the Legislature, where lawmakers could change the laws themselves. Wyoming is one of only 12 states that mandate life sentences without parole, according to the filing.

“If we’re not successful, that’s definitely another route I’m looking at,” McLane said. “It’s definitely a sort of one-two punch. I just don’t I hope I don’t have to take a second swing.”

The post When do people become adults? The answer may determine who’s sentenced to life without parole. appeared first on WyoFile .