The D.C. Sniper case and life sentences for juveniles (op-ed)

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for resentencing Lee Boyd Malvo.  Malvo and John Allen Muhammad were the infamous Beltway D.C. Snipers.  In 2002 Malvo and Muhammad terrorized the nation’s capital, Virginia, and Maryland during a series of sniper shootings that killed 10 and wounded 3.  

Muhammad was 41 during the sniper shootings.  He was sentenced to death in 2004 and executed in 2009.  Malvo was 17 and sentenced to multiple life sentences in 2006.  Malvo is now 34 and is serving four life sentences without parole in Virginia and has six life sentences without parole for the murders that took place in Maryland. 

During the same decade the Supreme Court started a series of rulings that recognized that teenage brains were undeveloped and prohibited extreme penalties for juveniles. 

First, in 2005, the court ruled that it was unconstitutional for juveniles to receive the death penalty.  Second, in 2010 the court ruled that juveniles may not receive life sentences for non-homicide convictions.  Then, in 2012, Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for defendants who were under the age of 18 violated the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment, unless the defendant is found to be “irreparably criminal”.   Also, in 2016, Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court decided the Miller’s prohibition on life-without-parole sentences applied to convictions before 2012.

Malvo’s lawyers went to court in 2017 and argued that the Miller and Montgomery decisions rendered Malvo’s sentence unconstitutional.  The lower courts agreed and ordered Virginia to resentence him, because the judge and jury had not had a chance to consider whether a shorter sentence might be more appropriate because of Malvo’s age. But the state of Virginia claimed Malvo’s sentence was discretionary (the judge had an option of a lesser sentence) and the 2012 Miller decision prohibited – mandatory – life-sentences without possibility of parole.  Malvo’s lawyers stated a life without parole sentence for a juvenile without considering the defendants maturity and changeability violates the Miller ruling weather the life sentence was mandatory or not.

The New Tribune editorial board correctly argued: Whether the public likes it or not, Malvo should qualify for resentencing.  His case has been hung up in the courts over technical questions about mandatory vs. discretionary life sentences.  The truth is, Malvo’s chances for parole are slim, because he’s been sentenced to six life sentences in Maryland, but like all Supreme Court Cases, there are implications for other juvenile offenders. 

At the time of Malvo’s original trial, he was one of 2,800 people nationwide who were juveniles when they were sentenced to life without possibility of parole.  After the 2016 Montgomery ruling resentencing hearings began across the country with over 1,900 inmates getting new hearings.  There was also a racial disparity.  African-American youths received life sentences at 10 times the rate of whites.

The proper outcome of this case won’t make a big difference for Malvo, but it will be the major difference in future juvenile cases. 

Malvo’s lawyers argued those sentenced to life without parole as juveniles are entitled to at least one opportunity to show they are not permanently incorrigible.  This is a hard argument to make with Malvo as an example because his crimes were so heinous, but Malvo is the best example to establish a precedent and prove “justice for all” isn’t just a slogan. 

First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 11/13/19