The Supreme Court wrestled with whether one of the killers who terrorized the Washington, D.C., region more than 15 years ago should be resentenced in light of recent decisions barring life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders.
Lee Boyd Malvo, who has spent roughly half his life behind bars for his role in the slayings, is asking the Supreme Court to rule that the court’s prior rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana require him to receive new sentencing hearings, since he was 17 at the time of his crimes.
In the first case, Miller, the justices in 2012 barred life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders. In the second case, Montgomery, the Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that Miller applied retroactively, and said its ruling in the prior case “drew a line between children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity and those rare children whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption.”
The justices seemed split Wednesday as to whether Malvo should be resentenced, though the court’s liberal bloc noted that at the time Malvo was sentenced for killing three people in Virginia — Caroline Seawell, Kenneth Bridges, and Linda Franklin— the only options for punishment were the death penalty and life in prison without the possibility of parole.
But Miller, Justice Elena Kagan said, “can be summarized in two words, which is that youth matters and that you have to consider youth in making these sorts of sentencing determinations.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the newest member of the high court, was an active questioner of both sides for most of the hourlong arguments, raising numerous queries about how courts can know whether a sentencing judge “separated incorrigible from merely immature” when doling out a punishment for a young defendant.
He also suggested that the court “might want to say what Miller and Montgomery mean as a rule together.”
Justice Samuel Alito seemed concerned with what could be considered by a sentencing judge to demonstrate a juvenile offender who receives a new sentencing hearing acted because of “transient immaturity.”
“If he can demonstrate, as a result of good behavior in prison, for example, that he has been rehabilitated, then he must be released?” he asked Danielle Spinelli, who argued on behalf of Malvo.
Spinelli said that rehabilitation would be one criteria for a sentencer to consider, but stressed “we are nowhere near any prospect of being released.”
Spinelli, who argued on behalf of Malvo, noted that when he was sentenced in 2004, the Supreme Court had not yet ruled in a string of cases that limited permissible punishments for offenders who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes.
In 2005, the high court prohibited the death penalty for juveniles, and in 2010 barred life without parole for minors who commit nonhomicidal crimes. Rulings in Miller and Montgomery followed.
Sentencers, Kagan wrote in 2012, must “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.”
Malvo and John Allen Muhammad were together called the “D.C. snipers” and responsible for shooting and killing 12 people, and wounding six more.
Muhammed was convicted of capital murder in Virginia and executed in 2009 for the crimes, and Malvo was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in 2012 and 2016, attorneys for Malvo believe he warrants new sentencing hearings because he was 17 at the time of his crimes.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and last year sided with Malvo, albeit “not with any satisfaction but to sustain the law,” the unanimous three-judge panel wrote in their ruling.
But lawyers representing the state of Virginia, who asked the Supreme Court to review the lower court’s ruling, argue that the Supreme Court’s past rulings do not apply to Malvo, as Miller involved only mandatory sentences of life without parole.
The high court agreed to hear the case in March.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Malvo and says he should be resentenced, it’s unlikely he will ever walk free. In addition to receiving four life sentences in Virginia, he was also sentenced for six killings in Maryland.
A decision from the justices is expected by the end of June.
