Noting the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to end juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses, the Nebraska Democratic Party recently passed a resolution that adds the elimination of JLWOP to their state legislative platform.

The Nebraska resolution states, in part, that:

WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has again, in Graham v. Florida, reaffirmed the fundamental differences between youth and adults in their ability to exercise judgment, foresee consequences and resist peer pressure, and

WHEREAS the Court has also noted the greater capacity of youth to change, thereby making it impossible to determine at sentencing that a youth cannot be reformed…

THEREFORE be it resolved that the Democratic Party in Nebraska support legislative efforts to eliminate sentences of life without possibility of parole for crimes committed by a youth who has not yet reached the age of 18.

While Colorado eliminated Juvenile LWOP several years ago, the state still practices direct file and consecutive sentencing that can amount to virtual life sentences for kids. In Grand County, 15-year-old John Caudle is being tried as an adult and faces 80 years for allegedly slaying his abusive parents. Children like Caudle cannot forsee the consequences of their actions and have great capacity to learn from their mistakes. They should not, therefore, be subject to abusive practices like consecutive 40 year sentences that ultimately just mean another life lost at great taxpayer expense. Supreme Court members noted the limited scope of their decision by citing Colorado’s consecutive sentencing practices. An adult sentence, whether it is 40, 80, or 120 years for a juvenile does not account for an individual child’s capacity to change.

There is probably no soul sorrier for its master’s mistakes than is John Caudle’s. But the question is: Does his soul deserve redemption or condemnation? And is it the state of Colorado’s purview to make such lasting and ill-begotten judgments on its children? Every religion in the world teaches love and forgiveness and yet here we are as a state encouraging, seeking, enforcing and even disguising the basest revenge we can possibly imagine.  The Nebraska Democratic Party clearly isn’t afraid to face its demons. StopDirectFile.org hopes that in next legislative session, Colorado too can come to terms with its own, very fallible humanity.

A correction was requested by the Attorney General’s Communications Director, Mike Saccone. The correction was made at 9:45 a.m. on July 29 .

15-year-old John Caudle was arraigned today on first degree murder charges in the deaths of his mother and stepfather. Caudle, who was 14 and weighed only 97 pounds when he was arrested, has been direct filed as an adult and faces 80 years in prison. Inside the Rio Grande County courtroom, the question on many people’s lips was ‘why is Assistant Attorney General Dan Edwards prosecuting this case’?

Edwards has a background in prosecuting death penalty cases and was reportedly involved with District Attorney Carol Chambers’ prosecution of Sir Mario Owens. Owens received the death penalty for the gang-related murder of witnesses set to testify against him.

Why Edwards is involved in the Caudle case is a standing question that raises concerns for Mary Ellen Johnson, Executive Director at Pendulum Juvenile Justice. “John Caudle might have weighed 97 pounds soaking wet and is about the farthest thing imaginable from a big bad gangbanger. The state has plenty of resources to prosecute an abused kid. Why are they bringing in an Assistant Attorney General, whose expertise is in death penalty cases? Local prosecutors have all the resources they need. What’s this really about?”

Asked why he thought Edwards was involved, State Public Defender Doug Wilson said, “That’s a good question,” but was reluctant to offer further speculation.

The Attorney General’s Office could not offer a complete explanation for its interest in this particular case.  The Attorney General’s Communications Director, Mike Saccone, explained the general purpose of the Attorney General’s Homicide Assistance Unit. When asked if a specific request was made by the District Attorney’s Office Saccone said, “I’m not familiar with the details of this particular case in terms of who requested them, but we generally only intervene in cases when we’re requested to come help.”

At time of publication, the Attorney General’s Office was looking for documentation of a request for assistance from the District Attorneys’ Office in the 12th Judicial District.

Specific information about a request for assistance was also sought from District Attorney Dan Mahonee’s Office, but could not be provided without the permission of prosecuting attorney Dan McIntyre, who is out of town until next week.

According to a recent Denver Post article, Gov. Bill Ritter is set to appoint several judges to the bench, including a vacancy created by Supreme Court Judge Mary Mullarkey’s recent decision to step down.   StopDirectFile.org has to ask, “what’s the point?” What’s the point when the judges you’re appointing aren’t really allowed the full scope of decision-making power that Coloradans believe they ought to have? What’s the point when a prosecutor can make an extra-judicial decision that no judge can overturn?

The power to direct file charges against a child isn’t just procedural authority, it is judicial authority. In effect, when a prosecutor chooses to file adult charges against a child, he or she is choosing a sentencing range for that child and pronouncing their judgment on that child in open court. Legal precedent in Colorado is clear. According to Colorado Revised Statutes,”the authoritative expression of legal conclusions in declaring the sentence of the law…and the pronouncing of judgment in open court in the presence of those affected thereby, so as to bind and control persons and property” are judicial functions that “cannot be lawfully exercised, except by those entrusted therewith by the people under the constitution.” De Votie v. McGerr, 14 Colo. 577, 23 P. 980 (1890).

Most states preserve separation of powers in filing adult charges by holding what is called a ‘transfer hearing.’ During a transfer hearing, from juvenile to adult court, a prosecutor presents his or her evidence against an accused child. A defense attorney then has the opportunity to cross examine that evidence before a judge. Based on the presentation and cross examination of evidence, the judge then determines the appropriate venue for trying a child. But NOT in Colorado. In Colorado we presume a child’s guilt just enough to make sure that they face consequences as an adult. In Colorado we make sure that a prosecutor’s decision to file adult charges is not subject to judicial review. That’s wrong and Gov. Ritter’s appointments, as a result, have no real meaning.