Adolescent Brain Development - the Youth Advocacy Division

Adolescent Brain Development
A Youth Advocacy Project/Juvenile Defense Network Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Quick Reference
1. Juvenile Defense Network, Fact Sheet
2. Juvenile Defense Network, Relevant Cases
3. Juvenile Defense Network, Annotated Bibliography
4. Juvenile Defense Network, Experts List (Draft)
5. Juvenile Defense Network, Adolescent Brain Development 2006 Mailing
6. Coalition for Juvenile Justice, A Developmental Framework for Juvenile Cases
II. News Articles
1. Stephanie Chen, States Rethink ‘Adult Time for Adult Crime’, CNN, January 15,
2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/15/connecticut.juvenile.ages/index.html
(last visited Apr. 22, 2010).
2. Jeffrey Rosen, The Brain on the Stand, N.Y. TIMES, March 11, 2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html (last visited Apr.
22, 2010).
3. Joline Krueger, Brain Science Offers Insight to Teen Crime, ALBUQUERQUE
TRIB., December 8, 2006, http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/dec/08/brain-scienceoffers-insight-teen-crime/
(last visited Apr. 22, 2010).
4. Ruben C. Gur, Brain Maturation and the Execution of Juveniles, THE PENN.
GAZETTE, January/February 2005.
5. Lee Bowman, New Research Shows Stark Differences in Teen Brains, Scripps
Howard, May 11, 2004, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-research-shows-starkdifferences-teen-brains
(last visited Apr. 22, 2010).
6. Claudia Wallis, What Makes Teens Tick? TIME, May 10, 2004.
7. Bruce Bower, Teen Brains on Trial: The Science of Neural Development Tangles
with the Juvenile Death Penalty, SCI. NEWS, May 8, 2004,
http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/teen_brains_trial.html (last
visited Apr. 22, 2010).
III. Academic Articles
1. Elizabeth Cauffman et. al., Age Differences in Affective Decision Making as Indexed
by Performance on the Iowa Gambling Test, 46 DEV. PSYCHOL. 193 (2010).
2. Laurence Steinberg, Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, 16 ANN. REV.
OF CLINICAL PSYCHOL. 47 (2009).
3. Laurence Steinberg, A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-taking, 28
DEVELOPMENTAL REV. 78 (2008).
4. Jeffrey Fagan, Juvenile Crime and Criminal Justice: Resolving Border Disputes, 18
FUTURE OF CHILDREN 81 (2008).
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_02_05.pdf (last
visited Apr. 30, 2010)
5. Barry Feld, A Slower Form of Death, 22 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB.
POL’Y 9 (2008).

6. Hillary Massey, 8 th Amendment and Juvenile Life Without Parole after Roper, 47 B.
C. L. REV. 1083 (2006).
7. Staci Gruber & Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, Neurobiology and the Law: A Role in
Juvenile Justice? 3 OHIO ST. J. OF CRIM. L. 321 (2006).
8. Margo Gardner & Laurence Steinberg, Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk
Preference, and Risky Decision-Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: An
Experimental Study, 41 DEV. PSYCHOL. 625 (2005).
9. Press Release, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Adolescent
Brains Show Reduced Reward Anticipation, (Feb. 25, 2004).
10. Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Scott, Less Guilty By Reason of Adolescence:
Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death
Penalty, 58 AMER. PSYCHOL. 1009 (2003).
IV. Reports and Other Advocacy Resources
1. CHILD. LAW CTR. OF MASS., UNTIL THEY DIE A NATURAL DEATH:
YOUTH SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN MASSACHUSETTS
(2009).
2. Wendy Paget Henderson, Life After Roper: Using Adolescent Brain Development in
Court, 11 A.B.A. CHILD. RTS 1, 1 (2009).
3. Connie de la Vega & Michelle Leighton, Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison:
Global Law and Practice, 42 U.S.F.L. REV. 983 (2008).
4. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, THE REST OF THEIR LIVES: LIFE WITHOUT
PAROLE FOR YOUTH IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2008 (2008).
5. A.B.A. RECOMMENDATION 105C, Mitigating Circumstances in Sentencing
Youthful Offenders (2008).
6. Allstate Advertisement, WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 17, 2007.
7. Less Guilty By Reason of Adolescence, Issue Brief (MacArthur Found. Res. Network
on Adolescent Dev. & Juv. Just., 2006.
http://www.adjj.org/downloads/6093issue_brief_3.pdf (last visited May 19, 2010)
8. National Institute of Mental Health, Teenage Brain: A Work in Progress, 2001.
V. Expert Testimonies/Briefs Addressing Expert Evidence
1. Amici Curiae Brief of the American Psychological Association, et al.,
Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida (2009)
2. Affidavit of Dr. Staci A. Gruber (2009)
3. Declaration of Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D., Patterson v. Texas (2002)
4. Testimony of Ruben C. Gur, Ph. D., People v. Clark, (Illinois)
5. Testimony of David Fassler, M.D., New Hampshire State Legislature (2004)
6. Interview with Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, PBS Frontline (2002)
VI. Supreme Court Opinions
1. Graham v. Florida – Majority opinion given by Justice Kennedy. Full opinion
available at http://eji.org/eji/files/Decision%20in%20Graham.pdf.
2. Graham v. Florida Quotes
3. Roper v. Simmons – Majority opinion given by Justice Kennedy
4. Atkins v. Virginia – Majority opinion given by Justice Stevens
5. Thompson v. Oklahoma – Majority opinion given by Justice Stevens

VII. Legal Motions from MA
1. Motion to dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) – 2009
2. Memo of law to dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) – 2009
3. Motion to Dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) – 2007
4. Massachusetts Exhibit Appendix (Jack Cunha) – 2007
5. Memo of Law to Dismiss (Jack Cunha) – 2007
6. Motion to Dismiss YO (Ken King) – 2007
7. Memo to Dismiss (Ken King) – 2007
8. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Ken King) – 2007
9. Motion to Dismiss (Patricia Downey) – 2005
VIII. Legal Motions from Other States
1. Petitioner Brief, Sullivan v. Florida (2009)
2. Petitioner Brief, Graham v. Florida (2009)
3. Pennsylvania – Amici Brief
4. Pennsylvania – Cover Sheet
5. Alabama – Juvenile LWOP Brief
6. Alabama – Sentencing Transcript
7. Colorado – Flakes v. People
8. Colorado – Apprendi Motion
9. Colorado – Cert Petition
10. Illinois – Motion Transfer Unconstitutional
11. Illinois – Reply Brief
12. Illinois – Appellant Brief
13. New Mexico – Motion to Dismiss
14. Washington, D.C. – Motion to Dismiss
15. Washington, D.C. – Reply Letter
16. Washington, D.C. – 2 nd Reply Letter
IX. State Statutes
1. 50 State Chart of JLWOP Law (National Conference of State Legislators)
X. Helpful Websites
1. List of helpful websites

Adolescent Brain Development
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Background
• With the recent cases of Graham v. Florida (2010), Roper v. Simmons (2005), Atkins v. Virginia (2002), and
Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), the topics of adolescent brain development and juvenile culpability have come to
the forefront of juvenile criminal law. In Graham, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to sentence
juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses to life without the possibility of parole. In Thompson and Roper, the
Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to give the death penalty to juveniles (Thompson set the age limit to
16, Roper to 18). In each of these cases, the underlying rationale was that juvenile offenders tend to lack maturity
(both socially and biologically), are more reckless, are more susceptible to peer pressure, and are more vulnerable
to their surroundings than adults. In both Graham and Atkins, the topic of brain development played a crucial role
in the Court determining that the sentence in question was not appropriate in light of the lessened culpability of
the category of offenders challenging the sentence (juveniles in Graham, mentally retarded individuals in Atkins).
Indeed, the Graham decision went as far as stating that “An offender’s age is relevant to the 8 th amendment, and
criminal procedure laws that fail to take defendants’ youthfulness into account at all would be flawed.” Graham v.
Florida, No. 08-7412, slip. op at 25, 560 U.S. __ (2010)
• Adolescent brain development has become an increasingly accurate field of research in recent years due to the
development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures. Prior to the use of MRI technology, the only
major studies that had been performed involved post-mortem (cadaver) tissue, since X-rays and other means of
testing were deemed potentially harmful to youth. MRI technology allows for the same subject to be tracked from
infancy into adulthood. 1
• States and the federal government generally do not recognize youth as being mature enough to handle many
situations. For example, youth cannot drive until age 16 (varies by state, w/ most adopting restrictions on under 18
drivers), or see rated R movies without adult supervision until they are 17. They cannot vote, smoke, sign
contracts, enter military services, or get married (varies by state) until age 18. And lastly, they cannot drink until
age 21. The implications of these social norms indicates that society does not fully trust youth with many
privileges, and thus do not consider them as responsible as adults. 2
Implications
• As compared to adults, juveniles have a “‘lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility’”; they
“are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure”; and
their characters are “not as well formed.” 3
• “The evidence is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that
govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that
make people morally culpable.” 4
• “Neuroscientists have been able to demonstrate conclusively that mental maturation follows closely the time
course of brain maturation. Thus, juveniles have to rely on the abilities of their still immature brains, and no
amount of social intervention or self-motivation can appreciably influence the biological processes involved in
brain maturation.” 5
• “The cortical regions that are last to mature… are involved in behavioral facets germane to many aspects of
criminal culpability. Perhaps most relevant is the involvement of these brain regions in the control of aggression
and other impulses, the process of planning for long-range goals, organization of sequential behavior,
consideration of alternatives and consequences, the process of abstraction and mental flexibility, and aspects of
memory including ‘working memory.’… If the neural substrates of these behaviors have not reached maturity
before adulthood, it is unreasonable to expect the behaviors themselves to reflect mature thought processes.”
[Emphasis Added]. 6

Scientific Backing
• Myelination is the main index by which brain maturity is measured. Myelin implies more mature, efficient
connections, within the brain’s ‘gray matter.’ UCLA researchers performed a study comparing myelination of
young adults aged 23-30 with adolescents aged 12-16. They found that there was a stark contrast in the
myelination, especially in the frontal lobe and frontal cortex, the areas that relate to the maturation of cognitive
processing and other ‘executive functions.’ 7
• According to studies using advances in MRI technology, the area of the brain (frontal lobe) that is most related to
decision making, planning, risk-assessment, judgment, and other factors generally associated with criminal
culpability is also one of the last to fully mature. 8
• According to research conducted by Lawrence Steinberg, a noted Professor of Psychology at Temple University,
“risky behavior in adolescence is the product of the interaction between changes in two distinct neurobiological
systems: a socioemotional system [which includes the amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex]. . . and a cognitive
control system.” 9 Steinberg has noted that “changes in the socioemotional system at puberty may promote
reckless, sensation-seeking behavior in early and middle adolescence, while the regions of the prefrontal cortex
that govern cognitive control continue to mature over the course of adolescence and into young adulthood. This
temporal gap between the increase in sensation seeking around puberty and the later development of mature selfregulatory
competence may combine to make adolescence a time of inherently immature judgment. Thus, despite
the fact that in many ways adolescents may appear to be as intelligent as adults (at least as indexed by
performance on tests of information processing and logical reasoning), their ability to regulate their behavior in
accord with these advanced intellectual abilities is more limited.” 10
• According to a study at Harvard’s McLean Hospital, young teens tend to rely more on the part of the brain
(amygdala) responsible for fear and other ‘gut reactions’ when responding to other people’s emotions. Adults in
contrast, more often utilize the frontal lobe, the part of the brain which yields more reasoned perceptions. 11
• According to a study performed by researches using MRI technology at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism, adolescents use lower activation of the part of the brain that is “crucial for motivating behavior
toward the prospect of rewards.” The study concludes that youth differ significantly in their responses to “rewarddirected
behavior.” 12
• The production of testosterone, a hormone that is closely associated with aggression, increases approximately
tenfold in adolescent boys. 13
1
American Bar Association (ABA): Juvenile Justice Center. Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability. 2004.
2
Fagan, Jeffrey. “Adolescents, Maturity, and the Law. The American Prospect. August, 2005.
3
Graham v. Florida, No. 08-7412, slip. op. at 17, 560 U.S. __ (2010) (quoted from Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. at 569-570 (2005)).
4
Gur, Ruben C., Ph.D. Declaration of Ruben C. Gur. Patterson v. Texas. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to US Supreme Court, J. Gary
Hart, Counsel. (2002).
5
Gur, op. cit.
6
Gur, op. cit.
7
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Teenage Brain: A Work in Progress. A brief overview of research into brain
development during adolescence. 2001. See also: Sowell, Elizabeth, et al. In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in
frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 1999; 2(10): 859-861.
8
Fagan, op, cit. See also: Goldberg, Elkhonon. The Executive Brain, Frontal Lobes and the Civilized Mind, (2001).
9
Lawrence Steinberg, Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, ANNU. REV. CLIN. PSYCHOL. 2009. 5:47–73 at 54.
10
Id. at 55.
11
NIMH, op cit. See also: Baird, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of facial affect recognition in children and adolescents.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1999; 38(2): 195-9.
12
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Adolescent Brains Show Reduced Reward Anticipation, 2004.
13
See Adams, Gerald R., Montemayor, Raymond, and Gullota, Thomas P., eds. Psychosocial Development during Adolescence. Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. (1996).

Adolescent Brain Development
Quick Reference Relevant Cases
GRAHAM v. FLORIDA (2010)
In Graham, the Supreme Court declared life without parole sentences for nonhomicide offenders under age 18
unconstitutional. This decision marked the first time that the court declared a non-capital punishment to be cruel and
unusual for an entire category of offenders. Although the holding of Graham arguably does not apply directly in
Massachusetts, much of the language is broad enough that it can apply to juveniles who committed homicides as well as
other offenses. Notably, there is language indicating that life without parole sentences may not be appropriate for
juveniles who “did not kill or intend to kill”, Graham v. Florida, No. 08-7412, slip. op. at 18, 560 U.S. __ (2010), as well
as other language noting that “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offender” Id. at 17
(quoting Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 853 (1988)) and that “[a]n offender’s age is relevant to the 8 th amendment, and
criminal procedure laws that fail to take defendants’ youthfulness into account at all would be flawed.” Id. at 25. The
court also noted that “[b]ecause ‘[t]he age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between
childhood and adulthood,’ those who were below that age when the offense was committed may not be sentenced to life
without parole for a nonhomicide crime.” Id. at 24 (quoting Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. at 574 (2005))
ROPER v SIMMONS (2005)
The March 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Roper finally outlawed the death penalty for juvenile offenders. Though the
majority opinion did not specifically mention recent scientific studies regarding differences between the adolescent brain
and the adult brain, the American Psychological Association (APA) submitted a brief to the court in regards to the recent
developments. Significantly, the scientific evidence presented by the APA was not challenged by either side, something
that had been done in prior decisions regarding the juvenile death penalty.
ATKINS v VIRGINIA (2002)
Atkins was the Supreme Court case that outlawed the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders, and set in motion the
ruling that was decided in Roper. Atkins is perhaps the most relevant case toward adolescent brain development
specifically, as it the practice of executing mentally retarded offenders was declared unconstitutional under the Eighth
Amendment (Cruel & Unusual Punishment). Justice Stevens delivered the Court’s Opinion, specifically noting that
“because of [mentally retarded persons’] disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses,
however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.”
With adolescent brain development studies demonstrating that most adolescents do not fully develop the parts of the brain
that deal specifically with reasoning, weighing of long-term goals, and instead tend to use the part of the brain responsible
for making “gut reactions,” the Atkins case has significant implications.
PATTERSON v TEXAS (2002)
In the case of Patterson v Texas, the Declaration of Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D. was submitted in appeals to bolster the argument
that the defendant, a juvenile at the time of the accused crime, did not have a fully developed brain, and therefore was less
culpable. The decision stated in part that “the evidence is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s
in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other
characteristics that make people morally culpable.” Dr. Gur’s findings were reiterated in the petition for writ of certiorari.
The ruling on Patterson was held however, and the accused was executed by the State of Texas in August, 2002.
THOMPSON v OKLAHOMA (1988)
Thompson was the Supreme Court case where the age limit for the death penalty was officially moved up to 16. Although
MRI technology was unavailable to demonstrate scientific reasoning for different brain development, the Thompson case
is still vital as the court differentiated the culpability of a 15-year old from that of an adult in the context of a “heinous
crime.” The decision on Thompson played a critical role as precedent for the findings in Roper.

Adolescent Brain Development
Annotated Bibliography
I. Quick Reference
Juvenile Defense Network, Fact Sheet
Juvenile Defense Network, Relevant Cases
Juvenile Defense Network, Annotated Bibliography
Juvenile Defense Network, Experts List (Draft)
Juvenile Defense Network, Adolescent Brain Development 2006 Mailing
Coalition for Juvenile Justice, A Developmental Framework for Juvenile Cases
II. News Articles
Stephanie Chen, States Rethink ‘Adult Time for Adult Crime’, CNN, January 15, 2010,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/15/connecticut.juvenile.ages/index.html (last visited Apr. 22,
2010).
• Discusses state efforts to raise age of automatic adult court jurisdiction, focusing on Connecticut,
which changed age from 16 to 17. Also quotes psychologist Laurence Steinberg comparing the
teenage brain to “a car with a good accelerator but a weak brake.”
Jeffrey Rosen, The Brain on the Stand, N.Y. TIMES, March 11, 2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html (last visited Apr. 22, 2010).
• Discusses the use of neuroscience in criminal law generally and explores debate over the
relevance of neuroscience to law. Includes interviews with a lot of the experts who are at the
forefront of brain science as it applies to juvenile justice. Pages 3-4 of Section III include
discussion of psychologist Ruben Gur’s expert testimony and the use of “neurolaw” in Roper.
Ruben C. Gur, Brain Maturation and the Execution of Juveniles, THE PENN. GAZETTE,
January/February 2005.
• Article written by a psychiatrist describing the use of brain research in advocating against
imposition of the death penalty on older adolescents.
• “The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those
relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of
consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable. Therefore, from the
perspective of neural development, someone under 20 should be considered to have an
underdeveloped brain. Additionally, since brain development in the relevant areas goes in phases
that vary in rate and is usually not complete before the early to mid-20s, there is no way to state
with any scientific reliability that an individual 17-year-old has a fully matured brain (and should
be eligible for the most severe punishment), no matter how many otherwise accurate tests and
measures might be applied to him at the time of his trial for capital murder.” (*4)

Joline Krueger, Brain Science Offers Insight to Teen Crime, ALBUQUERQUE TRIB., December 8,
2006, http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/dec/08/brain-science-offers-insight-teen-crime/ (last visited
Apr. 22, 2010).
• Brief article discussing brain development and question of why adolescents act without thinking.
“Cerebral construction is not complete until around ages 20 to 25, most scientists agree. The
frontal lobe is one of the last areas of the brain to develop. In the adolescent brain, it's barely
firing at all. Without the frontal lobe on board, it becomes physiologically harder for a teen to
completely understand the future consequences of his or her emotional or impulsive actions,
scientists contend.”
Lee Bowman, New Research Shows Differences in Teen Brains, Scripps Howard, May 11, 2004,
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-research-shows-stark-differences-teen-brains (last visited Apr. 22,
2010).
• Explains how while teens’ bodies maybe fully developed, their brains are nowhere near full
maturity, especially in the areas related to culpability.
• “Deborah Yurgelun-Todd of Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital in Boston has studied
how teenagers and adults respond differently to the same images. Shown a set of photos of
people's faces contorted in fear, adults named the right emotion, but teens seldom did, often
saying the person was angry. … Adults used both the advanced prefrontal cortex and the more
basic amygdala to evaluate what they had seen; younger teens relied entirely on the amygdala,
while older teens (top age in the group was 17) showed a progressive shift toward using the
frontal area of the brain. ‘Just because teens are physically mature, they may not appreciate the
consequences or weigh information the same way as adults do,’ Yurgelun-Todd said. ‘Good
judgment is learned, but you can't learn it if you don't have the necessary hardware.’”
Claudia Wallis, What Makes Teens Tick? TIME, May 10, 2004,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994126,00.html (last visited Apr. 22, 2010).
• Discusses the new technology, processes, and findings relating to brain development (as of 2004).
Cites many of the leading brain researchers in the field.
• “The very last part of the brain to be pruned and shaped to its adult dimensions is the prefrontal
cortex, home of the so-called executive functions--planning, setting priorities, organizing
thoughts, suppressing impulses, weighing the consequences of one's actions. In other words, the
final part of the brain to grow up is the part capable of deciding, I'll finish my homework and take
out the garbage, and then I'll IM my friends about seeing a movie.” (4)
Bruce Bower, Teen Brains on Trial: The Science of Neural Development Tangles with the Juvenile Death
Penalty, SCIENCE NEWS, May 8, 2004,
http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/teen_brains_trial.html (last visited Apr. 22,
2010).
• A good overview of the science involved and its application to the juvenile death penalty.
• “‘Our objection to the juvenile death penalty is rooted in the fact that adolescents' brains function
in fundamentally different ways than adults' brains do,’ says David Fassler, a psychiatrist at the
University of Vermont in Burlington and a leader of the effort to infuse capital-crime laws with
brain science.
Age-related brain differences pack a real-world wallop, in his view. ‘From a biological
perspective,’ Fassler asserts, ‘an anxious adolescent with a gun in a convenience store is more
likely to perceive a threat and pull the trigger than is an anxious adult with a gun in the same
store.’” (1)

III. Academic Articles
Elizabeth Cauffman et. al., Age Differences in Affective Decision Making as Indexed by Performance on
the Iowa Gambling Test, DEV. PSYCHOL., 193 (2010).
• Study showing that adolescents perform more poorly than adults in decision-making tasks where
affective processing is involved and respond differently to rewards.
• “[D]ecision making, which frequently precedes engaging in risk-taking behavior, indeed
improves throughout adolescence and into young adulthood … this improvement may be due not
to cognitive maturation but to changes in affective processing. Whereas adolescents may attend
more to the potential rewards of a risky decision than to the potential costs, adults tend to
consider both, even weighing costs more than rewards.
This higher level of approach behavior during adolescence coupled with the lesser inclination
toward harm avoidance may help explain increased novelty-seeking in adolescence, which can
lead to various types of risk taking, including experimentation with drugs, unprotected sex, and
delinquent activity.” (206)
Laurence Steinberg, Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, 16 ANN. REV. OF CLINICAL
PSYCHOL. 47 (2008).
• Excellent overview of adolescent development research. Outlines the implications of adolescent
brain, cognitive, and psychosocial development on culpability, competence to stand trial, and
impact of sanctions on adolescents.
Laurence Steinberg, A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-taking, 28
DEVELOPMENTAL REV. 78 (2008).
• Summarizes brain development research and discusses why risk-taking behavior increases from
childhood to adolescence and decreases from adolescence to adulthood.
• “As a consequence of [neural transformations], relative to prepubertal individuals, adolescents
who have gone through puberty are more inclined to take risks in order to gain rewards, an
inclination that is exacerbated by the presence of peers. This increase in reward-seeking … has
its onset around the onset of puberty, and likely peaks sometime around age 15, after which it
begins to decline. Behavioral manifestations of these changes are evident in a wide range of
experimental and correlational studies using a diverse array of tasks and self-report instruments
… and are logically linked to well-documented structural and functional changes in the brain.”
(92)
Jeffrey Fagan, Juvenile Crime and Criminal Justice: Resolving Border Disputes, 18 FUTURE OF
CHILDREN 81 (2008). http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_02_05.pdf (last
visited Apr. 30, 2010)
• “Without exception the research evidence shows that policies promoting transfer of adolescents
from juvenile to criminal court fail to deter crime among sanctioned juveniles and may even
worsen public safety risks. The weight of empirical evidence strongly suggests that increasing
the scope of transfer has no general deterrent effects on the incidence of serious juvenile crime or
specific deterrent effects on the re-offending rates of transferred youth. In fact, compared with
youth retained in juvenile court, youth prosecuted as adults had higher rates of rearrest for serious
felony crimes such as robbery and assault. They were also rearrested more quickly and were
more often returned to incarceration.” (105)
Barry Feld, A Slower Form of Death, 22 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POL’Y 9 (2008).
• Argues that the diminished responsibility rationale in Roper should be extended by state
legislatures to recognize youthfulness as a categorical mitigating factor in sentencing.

• “Although states may hold youths accountable for the harms they cause, Roper explicitly limited
the severity of the sentence a state could impose on them because of their diminished
responsibility. Even after youths develop the nominal ability to distinguish right from wrong,
their bad decisions lack the same degree of moral blameworthiness as those of adults and warrant
less severe punishment.” (3)
• “The court [in Roper] recognized that youths are more impulsive, seek exciting and dangerous
experiences, and prefer immediate rewards to delayed gratification. They misperceive and
miscalculate risks and discount the likelihood of bad consequences. They succumb to negative
peer and adverse environmental influences. All of these normal characteristics increase their
likelihood of causing devastating injuries to themselves and to others. Although they are just as
capable as adults of causing great harm, their immature judgment and lack of self-control reduces
their culpability and warrants less-severe punishment.” (6)
• “Roper’s diminished responsibility rationale provides a broader foundation to formally recognize
youthfulness as a categorical mitigating factor in sentencing. Because adolescents lack the
judgment, appreciation of consequences, and self-control of adults, they deserve shorter sentences
when they cause the same harms. Adolescents’ personalities are in transition, and it is unjust and
irrational to continue harshly punishing a fifty- or sixty-year-old person for the crime that an
irresponsible child committed several decades earlier.” (10)
Hillary Massey, 8 th Amendment and Juvenile Life Without Parole after Roper, 47 B. C. L. REV. 1083
(2006).
• Argues for elimination or limitation of JLWOP based on proportionality review and diminished
culpability of juveniles.
• “The psychosocial research shows strong differences between adolescents and adults that
implicate assessments of culpability. Researchers have identified four psychosocial factors that
affect the way adolescents make decisions, including whether to commit a crime or an antisocial
act: peer influence, attitude toward risk, future orientation, and capacity for self-management. In
one study, adolescents on average scored significantly lower than adults on these factors and
displayed less sophistication in decision making. Although individual levels of these factors are
more predictive of antisocial decision making than chronological age alone, researchers found
that the period between ages sixteen and nineteen is an important transition point in psychosocial
development.” (1090)
Staci Gruber & Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, Neurobiology and the Law: A Role in Juvenile Justice? 3 OHIO
ST. J. OF CRIM. L. 321 (2006).
• Summarizes adolescent neurobiology research and argues that brain differences due to immature
development, like brain differences due to disease, be taken into account in justice system.
• “[N]eurobiological studies … indicate that the cerebral cortex undergoes a dynamic course of
metabolic maturation that persists at least until the age of eighteen. … Younger, less cortically
mature adolescents may be more at risk for engaging in impulsive behavior than their older peers
for two reasons. First, their developing brains are more susceptible to the neurological effects of
external influences such as peer pressure. Second, they may make poor decisions because they are
cognitively less able to select behavioral strategies associated with self-regulation, judgment, and
planning that would reduce the effects of environmental risk factors for engaging in such
behaviors.” (330)
• Steps for defense attorneys to take to understand a client’s state of mind and baseline levels of
functioning are listed on p. 332.

Margo Gardner & Laurence Steinberg, Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk Preference, and Risky
Decision-Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: An Experimental Study, 41 DEV. PSYCHOL. 625
(2005).
• Study finding that exposure to peers during a risk taking task doubled the amount of risky
behavior among mid-adolescents (with a mean age of 14), increased it by 50 percent among
college undergraduates (with a mean age of 19), and had no impact at all among young adults.
• “[T]he presence of peers makes adolescents and youth, but not adults, more likely to take risks
and more likely to make risky decisions.” (634)
Press Release, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Adolescent Brains Show Reduced
Reward Anticipation, (Feb. 25, 2004). http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2004/niaaa-25.htm (last visited
May 19, 2010)
• Discusses how adolescents’ brains respond differently to incentives (risk/reward). Cites MRI
study conducted on 12-17 year old and 22-28 year old subjects.
• “Adolescents show less activity than adults in brain regions that motivate behavior to obtain
rewards, according to results from the first magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study to examine
real-time adolescent response to incentives.” (1)
Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Scott, Less Guilty By Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity,
Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58 AMER. PSYCHOL. 1009 (2003).
• Explains from a medical standpoint how adolescent brain development affects culpability
• “In general, adolescents use a risk-reward calculus that places relatively less weight on risk, in
relation to reward, than that used by adults.” (1012)
• “The vast majority of adolescents who engage in criminal or delinquent behavior desist from
crime as they mature.” (note 13, at 1015)
IV. Reports and Other Advocacy Resources
CHILDREN’S LAW CTR. OF MASS., UNTIL THEY DIE A NATURAL DEATH: YOUTH
SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN MASSACHUSETTS (2009).
• Study examining the imposition of juvenile life without parole in Massachusetts. Includes
discussion of MA law, adolescent brain and developmental research, statistics and vignettes about
the youth sentenced to LWOP in MA, discussion of the experiences of youth in adult prisons,
analysis of economic costs of the sentencing practice, and a summary of global sentencing
practices with respect to juvenile life without parole.
Wendy Paget Henderson, Life After Roper: Using Adolescent Brain Development in Court, 11 CHILD.
RTS 1, 1 (2009).
• Advocacy guide for using adolescent brain research in litigation prepared by A.B.A. Children’s
Rights Litigation Committee. Issues addressed include competence, sentencing mitigation,
duress and coercion, differences in assessing reasonableness and recklessness for juveniles, and
mental responsibility.
Connie de la Vega & Michelle Leighton, Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison: Global Law and
Practice, 42 U.S.F.L. REV. 983 (2008).
• Examines international norms and practices regarding juvenile life without parole.
• “The United States is the only violator of the international human rights standard prohibiting
juvenile LWOP sentences. With thousands of juveniles serving LWOP sentences, and none
serving such sentences in the rest of the world, the United States is the only country now violating
this standard” (990)

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, THE REST OF THEIR LIVES: LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR YOUTH
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2008 (2008).
• Executive Summary of report examining juvenile life without parole in the U.S. Discusses
crimes that can lead to LWOP, sentencing practices across the states, racially discriminatory
sentencing, violent experiences that youth have had in prison, international standards regarding
JLWOP, and recommendations for legislatures. Updated in 2008.
A.B.A. RECOMMENDATION 105C, Mitigating Circumstances in Sentencing Youthful Offenders
(2008).
• ABA Recommendation calling for less punitive sentences for children under 18, recognition of
youth as a mitigating factor in sentencing, and parole or early release eligibility for youthful
offenders.
• “The American Bar Association has a long history of recognizing that youth under 18 who are
involved with the justice system should be treated differently than those who are 18 or older.
• The ABA’s overall approach to juvenile justice policies has been and continues to be to strongly
protect the rights of youthful offenders within all legal processes while insuring public safety.
Central to this ABA premise is the understanding that youthful offenders have lesser culpability
than adult offenders due to the typical behavioral characteristics inherent in adolescence. It is
understood that they can and do commit delinquent and criminal acts that have an impact on
public safety, but these actors nonetheless are developmentally different. They are not adults and
do not have fully-formed adult characteristics.” (Introduction)
Allstate Advertisement, WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 17, 2007.
• Insurance ad advocating for graduated driver licensing laws on the basis of adolescent brain
development. The ad pictures an image of a brain with a car-shaped hole and reads, “Why do
most 16-year-olds drive like they’re missing a part of their brain? BECAUSE THEY ARE.”
• “Even bright, mature teenagers sometimes do things that are ‘stupid.’
But when that happens, it’s not really their fault. It’s because their brain hasn’t finished
developing. The underdeveloped area is called the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex. It plays a
critical role in decision making, problem solving and understanding future consequences of
today’s actions. Problem is, it won’t be fully mature until they’re into their 20s.”
Less Guilty By Reason of Adolescence, Issue Brief (MacArthur Found. Res. Network on Adolescent Dev.
& Juv. Just., 2006. http://www.adjj.org/downloads/6093issue_brief_3.pdf (last visited May 19, 2010)
- Explains “immaturity gap” in adolescents who are intellectually mature but more impulsive,
short-sighted, and susceptible to peer influence than adults, and argues that juveniles are less
culpable than adults because of their immaturity. Advocates for a separate system for juvenile
offenders.
ABA Online: Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability, (2004)
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf (.pdf. format)
• Concise overview of the implications of adolescent brain development science on the juvenile
justice system
National Institute of Mental Health, Teenage Brain: A Work in Progress (2001).
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/teenbrain.cfm
• Brief article summarizing some of the teenage brain studies performed by 2001.
• “Using functional MRI (fMRI), a team led by Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd at Harvard's McLean
Hospital scanned subjects' brain activity while they identified emotions on pictures of faces
displayed on a computer screen. Young teens, who characteristically perform poorly on the task,

activated the amygdala, a brain center that mediates fear and other "gut" reactions, more than the
frontal lobe. As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal
lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance. Similarly, the researchers
saw a shift in activation from the temporal lobe to the frontal lobe during a language skills task,
as teens got older.” (2)
V. Expert Testimony/Briefs
Petitioner Brief, Graham v. Florida (2010)
Successful Supreme Court brief arguing against juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses
committed by juveniles under 18. Cites Roper and adolescent brain research extensively.
Petitioner Brief, Sullivan v. Florida (2009)
Brief arguing against juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offense committed by 13-year-old.
Cites Roper and adolescent brain research extensively.
Amici Curiae Brief of the American Psychological Association, et al., Sullivan and Graham (2009)
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCu4HealthOrgs.pdf
The APA and others’ amicus brief in Sullivan and Graham that cites heavily to new brain science
Testimony of David Fassler, M.D., New Hampshire State Legislature (2004)
http://ccjr.policy.net/relatives/22020.pdf (.pdf format)
Testimony given to the State Legislature of New Hampshire in efforts to outlaw the juvenile death penalty
in the state (relies heavily on brain development arguments)
Declaration of Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D., Patterson v. Texas (2002)
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Gur%20affidavit.pdf (.pdf format)
Declaration in Patterson v. Texas (juvenile death penalty case) citing heavily upon recent science
regarding adolescent brain development
VI. Supreme Court Opinions
Graham v. Florida – 560 U.S. ____ (2010)
Supreme Court case that declared life without parole unconstitutional for juvenile offenders under 18
convicted of nonhomicide crimes.
Quotes from Graham v. Florida
Potentially useful language from the Graham decision.
Roper v. Simmons – 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
Supreme Court case that declared the juvenile death penalty unconstitutional and discusses the
developmental differences between juveniles under age 18 and adults.
Atkins v. Virginia – 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
Supreme Court case that declared the death penalty for mentally retarded persons unconstitutional (uses
arguments of brain development)
Thompson v. Oklahoma – 487 U.S. 815 (1988)
Supreme Court case that declared the death penalty illegal for youth under the age of 16.

VII. Legal Motions from MA
Motion to dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) – 2009
Memo of law to dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) –
2009
Motion to Dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) – 2007
Massachusetts Exhibit Appendix (Jack Cunha) –
2007
VIII. Legal Motions from Other States
Petitioner Brief – Sullivan v. Florida
Petitioner Brief – Graham v. Florida
Pennsylvania – Amici Brief
Pennsylvania – Cover Sheet
Alabama – Juvenile LWOP Brief
Alabama – Sentencing Transcript
Colorado – Flakes v. People
Colorado – Apprendi Motion
IX. State Statutes
Memo of Law to Dismiss (Jack Cunha) – 2007
Motion to Dismiss YO (Ken King) – 2007
Memo to Dismiss (Ken King) – 2007
Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Ken King) –
2007
Motion to Dismiss (Patricia Downey) – 2005
Colorado – Cert Petition
Illinois – Motion Transfer Unconstitutional
Illinois – Reply Brief
Illinois – Appellant Brief
New Mexico – Motion to Dismiss
Washington, D.C. – Motion to Dismiss
Washington, D.C. – Reply Letter
Washington, D.C. – 2 nd Reply Letter
Chart showing how and where juvenile life without parole is imposed across 50 states (National
Conference of State Legislatures)
Regularly updated state-by-state statistics on juvenile life without parole:
http://www.law.usfca.edu/jlwop/resourceguide.html
X. Helpful Websites
Laurence Steinberg Publications (Website)
http://www.temple.edu/psychology/lds/publications.htm
Laurence Steinberg is a professor of Psychology at Temple University and a leading authority on
psychological development during adolescence. Pdf versions of his publications are available on this site.
Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth (Website)
http://www.endjlwop.org/
The national campaign to end juvenile life without parole includes information about state sentencing
practices and an extensive advocacy resource bank, including a section on adolescent brain research.

Most of the materials for Sullivan and Graham are available on the site, and the site is updated regularly
with new resources.
American Bar Association: Juvenile Justice Committee (Website)
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/
The ABA’s Juvenile Justice website has a myriad of resources regarding adolescent brain development,
and simple searches of brain development will yield current articles as well as information about the
Graham, Roper, and Atkins cases. The best way to navigate this site is by using the search function.
PBS Frontline: Inside the Teenage Brain (Website/Program)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/
This 2002 PBS Frontline specifically dealt with recent technology in the field of neuroimaging as it
relates to adolescent brain development. The show gives an in-depth overview of the science and
technology involved, includes interviews, and discusses some of the implications of the findings. Watch
the entire show online, read the transcript, and read interviews w/ experts.
MacArthur Foundation on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice (Website)
http://www.adjj.org/content/index.php
The MacArthur Foundation’s website has numerous documents, briefs, and PowerPoint presentations all
discussing adolescent development (immaturity, cognitive abilities, risk-assessment, etc). The Foundation
consists of some of the leading researches in the field of adolescent development as it relates to the
juvenile justice system.
National Juvenile Justice Network (Website)
http://njjn.org/
The National Juvenile Justice Network website posts a wealth of resources, including its own research
publications, legislative material, and publications on a variety of issues in juvenile justice.

Adolescent Brain Development
Quick Reference Experts List (DRAFT)
BAIRD, ABIGAIL, Ph.D.
Neuroscientist – Dartmouth College
Phone: (603) 646-9022 Fax: Email: abigail.a.baird@dartmouth.edu
Website: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~psych/people/faculty/a-baird.html
Worked with Deborah Yurgelun-Todd (below) on the 1999 study involving teens’ identification of
emotions. In subsequent experiments, Dr. Baird learned that teens’ correct recognition of emotional
responses significantly improved when the faces were those of people they knew, suggesting that
adolescents are more prone to pay attention to things that are more closely related to them.
BJORK, JAMES, Ph.D.
Researcher – National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Phone:
Website:
Fax: Email:
Researcher at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism who used MRI technology to scan
brains of 12 adolescents (aged 12-17) and 12 adults (aged 22-28) comparing their responses to simulated
situations involving risks and rewards. The study found that youth tend to use lower activation of the part
of the brain associated with motivating behavior toward the prospect of rewards. Dr. Bjork notes that the
study “may help to explain why so many young people have difficulty achieving long-term goals.”
FASSLER, DAVID, M.D.
Clinical Associate Professor – UVM Medical School, Psychiatry Dept.
Phone: (802) 865-3450
Website:
Fax: Email: David.Fassler@uvm.edu
Adolescent psychiatrist who testified on behalf of the American Psychiatric Association in Nevada in
2003 and New Hampshire in 2004 to try and persuade the state legislatures to abolish the death penalty
for juveniles. Both states abolished the practice after Dr. Fassler’s testimony, which used studies
regarding the development of the adolescent brain as part of the basis of his argument.
GIEDD, JAY, M.D.
Neuroscientist – National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Phone: (301) 435-4517
Website:
Fax: Email: GieddJ@intra.nimh.nih.gov
Has performed extensive research involving almost 2,000 kids and adolescents using MRI technology
that demonstrates that adolescent brains are still developing and are different from fully-developed adult
brains. Dr. Giedd has created records of each of the youth he has scanned, taking MRI every two years,
showing the growth and development of the brain over the years. His research shows that especially in
early adolescence, the brain is undergoing drastic changes.

GOLDBERG, ELKHONON Ph.D.
Clinical Professor – NYU Medical School
Phone: (212) 541 6412 Fax: (212) 765 7158 Email: eg@elkhonongoldberg.com
Website: http://www.elkhonongoldberg.com/
Authored The Executive Brain, Frontal Lobes and the Civilized Mind, (2001), which contends that the
frontal lobe is responsible for decision making, planning, cognition, judgment, and other behavior skills
associated with criminal culpability. While Dr. Goldberg is not juvenile specific, his findings are
extremely important when combined with work that proves that the frontal lobe is still undergoing
significant changes during adolescence.
GOGTAY, NITIN M.D.
Psychiatrist - NIMH
Phone: (301) 443-4513
Website:
Fax: Email:
Led a team that used MRI technology to study youth ages 4 to 21 to prove that the frontal lobe is one of
the last areas of the brain to fully mature. The frontal lobe is thought to be the part of the brain most
closely associated to factors related to criminal culpability such as decision making, risk assessment, etc.
GRISSO, THOMAS, Ph.D.
Professor – UMASS Medical School, Psychiatry Dept.
Phone: (508)-856-3625 Fax: (508)-856-6426 Email: Thomas.Grisso@umassmed.edu
Website: http://www.umassmed.edu/cmhsr/faculty/Grisso.cfm
Nationally known juvenile forensics expert and co-editor of Youth on Trial, (2000), which argues in part
that the psychological development of adolescents affects their abilities to comprehend the juvenile
justice process, and also makes them less morally culpable. The book specifically takes on the issue of
“Adult Time for Adult Crime.”
GRUBER, STACI, Ph.D.
Neuropsychologist – McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA
Phone: (617)-855-3238
Website:
Fax: Email:
GUR, RUBEN, Ph.D.
Neuropsychologist – University of Pennsylvania Hospital
Phone: (215) 662-2915 Fax: Email: gur@bbl.med.upenn.edu
Website: http://www.med.upenn.edu/ins/faculty/gur.htm
Submitted declaration in Patterson v. Texas (2002), stressing that adolescents were less culpable than
adults. Discusses how the parts of the brain most related to criminal culpability are also the latest parts to
develop.

SCOTT, ELIZABETH, J.D.
Professor – University of Virginia Law School
Phone: (434) 924-3217 Fax: (804) 924-7536 Email: es@virginia.edu
Website: http://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/faculty.nsf/FHPbI/5417
Co-director and founder of the Center for Children, Families and Law and law professor at University of
Virginia who specializes in juvenile and family law. Author of “Blaming Youth,” (2002), an essay which
uses scientific research to demonstrate why juveniles are not as culpable from a legal perspective.
SOWELL, ELIZABETH, Ph.D.
Professor – UCLA Medical School, Neurology Dept.
Phone: (310) 206-2101 Fax: Email: esowell@loni.ucla.edu
Website: http://www.neurology.ucla.edu/faculty/SowellE.htm
Led studies of brain development from adolescence to adulthood. Found that during adolescence, the
frontal lobe of the brain (the part that relates to the maturation of cognitive processing and other
‘executive functions), undergoes the most significant changes. The study found that the frontal lobe was
the last part of the brain to fully develop, and thus while adolescent brains may be similar to adults, they
differ in their abilities to reason.
TOGA, ARTHUR, Ph.D.
Professor – UCLA Medical School, Neurology Dept.
Phone: (310)206-2101 Fax: (310)206-5518 Email: toga@loni.ucla.edu
Website: http://www.neurology.ucla.edu/faculty/TogaA.htm
Neuroimaging specialist who worked with NIMH to render MRI scans into a 4-D time-lapse model
demonstrating the evolution of a child’s brain into adulthood (the 4 th dimension is rate of change). The
model demonstrates the growth and movement of different brain matter as children grow into adults.
YURGELUN-TODD, DEBORAH Ph.D.
Neuropsychologist – McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA
Phone: (617)-855-3238
Website:
Fax: Email:
Performed a study comparing what parts of the brain adolescents and adults use when responding to
emotions. The study concluded that adolescents tend to rely on the part of the brain responsible for “gut
reactions,” in contrast to adults who more often use the part of the brain responsible for more rational (not
based on emotional responses) decisions.

Limbic System
Adolescent Brain Development
Understanding the Parts of the Brain
Amygdala
The Adult Brain
The Frontal Lobe, often called the “command center” of the brain, is the part of the brain
that controls the decision making process for adults, including long-term planning, riskassessment,
impulse control, and other behaviors associated with criminal culpability. It is
also one of the last parts of the brain to fully mature (in the early 20s). 1 This late maturation
process suggests that adolescents are not as capable as adults of weighing long-term
consequences, and evaluating risk-assessment.
The Prefrontal Cortex is responsible for cognitive processing, problem solving, and
emotional control in adults. There is a stark contrast in brain maturation (Myelination)
between youth aged 12-16 and young adults (23-30), especially in the Frontal Lobe and
Prefrontal Cortex. 2 This difference suggests that adults are more capable of controlling their
emotions and making more rational decisions than adolescents.
The Adolescent Brain
The Limbic System regulates hormonal processing, which is overly active in adolescents, 3
and also is responsible for handling emotional reactions. Adolescents tend to use their
Limbic System more often in the decision making process, since their Frontal Lobes are
not fully developed, which results in adolescents making more decisions based on
emotional reactions rather than reasoning, weighing of long term consequences, or
planning. 4
The Amygdala, part of the Limbic System, is responsible for impulse reactions, emotional
reactions, fear, and is also used in the decision-making process of adolescents.
Developing adolescents tend to use their Amygdala when responding to other people’s
emotions, yielding more reactionary, less reasoned perceptions of situations than adults. 5
Juvenile Defense Network ~ Lawyers Helping Lawyers Helping Kids

Footnotes:
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Fagan, Jeffrey. “Adoescents, Maturity, and the Law.” The American Prospect. August, 2005.
2. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Teenage Brain: A Work in Progress. 2001.
3. Adolescents going through puberty experience increased hormone levels. For example, the production of testosterone, a
hormone closely associated with aggression, increases approximately tenfold in boys. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Adolescent Brains Show Reduced Reward Anticipation. 2004.
4. McNamee, Rebecca. An Overview of the Science of Brain Development. Presented at the Coalition for
Juvenile Justice Annual Conference. 2006.
5. NIMH. Id.
Images Adapted From:
_______________________________________________________________________
1. PBS: The Secret Life of the Brain: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/
2. Amygdala/Limbic System: http://www.memorylossonline.com/glossary/amygdala.html
Online Resources:
_______________________________________________________________________
1. ABA: Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf
2. American Psychologist: Less Guilty by Reasons of Adolescence
http://ccjr.policy.net/cjedfund/resourcekit/Psychology_Less_Guilty.pdf
3. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Adolescent Brains Show Reduced Reward Anticipation.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2004/niaaa-25.htm
4. National Institute of Mental Health: Imaging Study Shows Brain Maturing.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/prbrainmaturing.cfm
5. PBS Frontline: Inside the Teenage Brain
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/
6. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of the American Bar Association, et al.
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/aba.pdf
7. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of the American Medical Association, et al.
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/ama.pdf
8. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of the American Psychological Association, et al.
http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/roper-v-simmons.pdf
9. Science Magazine: Crime, Culpability, and the Adolescent Brain
http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/research/lncd/papers/ScienceLunaOct2004.pdf
10. Science News: Teen Brains on Trial.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040508/bob9.asp
11. Juvenile Defense Network: Roper v. Simmons and ways to incorporate it into your practice.
http://www.youthadvocacyproject.org/pdfs/Roper%20fact%20sheet.pdf
This project is supported by Grant # 2005 JF-FX 0055 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Programs Division and subgranted to the Committee for Public Counsel Services.
Points of view in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Programs Division.
Juvenile Defense Network
Youth Advocacy Project/CPCS
Ten Malcolm X Blvd.
Roxbury, MA 02119
Tel: (617) 445-5640
http://www.youthadvocacyproject.org/jdn.htm

Adolescent Brain Development
Implications in the Courtroom
Adolescence has long been known as a time of significant psychosocial development. Recent advances in
fMRI (functional MRI) technology have been critical in understanding adolescence as a crucial period of brain
development. 1 Since the science is relatively new, we do not know how it will affect juvenile justice
jurisprudence; a system focused on behavior not anatomy. Science supports the notion that anatomy affects
behavior, and as juvenile defenders we need to educate the court in this area and use the research to
advocate for our clients.
Below are some suggestions on how to use this new brain information in your practice. There are many ways
to utilize the research, from pre-trial issues to jury instructions. However, counsel should be aware that there
is no case law in Massachusetts addressing the admissibility of brain science testimony and, therefore, be
prepared for any objections. We also suggest counsel submit a separate jury instruction on adolescent brain
development in every juvenile trial to highlight that kids are different.
Brain Development Facts & Implications in the Courtroom:
Adolescence is a time of significant neurobiological and psychosocial development, meaning that adolescent
behaviors are less predictive than adult behavior of personality characteristics and future behavior. 2 This fact
can be used in disposition/sentencing to argue that children can be rehabilitated and that long, and
especially adult sentences, are not consistent with research that indicates adolescents behavior can change
and prior behavior is not as predictive of future behavior. Additionally, the fact that their brains are not fully
developed can also be used when seeking relief from the sex offender registry, a consequence which
neglects to consider that youth can change their “criminal” behavior.
Adolescent brains undergo a second wave of significant development during the teen years, (primarily
concentrated in the Frontal Lobe), meaning that their capacity to make decisions, use judgment, respond to
others’ emotions, and assess long-term consequences is immature, and still developing. 3 This fact can be
used as a trial issue and as part of jury instructions. Since adolescents tend to respond to certain stimuli
using their Amygdala, the youth, it can be argued, may not be able to form the requisite intent for the crime
charged. If you have a client with a history of trauma the intent issue, especially in assault type cases, is even
more compelling. Trauma during childhood can become biologically encoded in the brain, affecting brain
development. This encoding can impair many functions of the brain including memory, reality testing, and
emotional processing, and can cause increased feelings of anxiety, arousal, irritability, depression, and
aggression. The more chronic the trauma, the stronger the impact. 4
Even as their brains develop, and their cognitive abilities mature, adolescents continue to display
psychosocial immaturity. Adolescents are more prone to peer pressure, tend to focus on reward over risk, act
impulsively, and are present instead of future oriented. 5 While this is based on developmental research, it is
consistent with adolescent brain research findings and is relevant in joint venture cases.
During adolescence, the brain undergoes significant maturation called Myelination, which streamlines the
connections inside the brain, allowing for more reasoned responses. The maturation process is not
completed until young adulthood (perhaps as late as age 25), making the brains of adolescents inherently
less capable of balancing their emotions, and more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. 6 This fact is relevant
in crafting conditions of probation that meet your client’s developmental needs. The imposition of multiple
conditions is counterintuitive to what we know about adolescents; they are generally poor decision makers
and lack judgment in assessing long-term consequences.
The Frontal Lobe, often called the command center of the brain, is not fully developed in adolescents so their
ability to make decisions, respond to other people, use reasoned judgment, and assess long-term
consequences is immature and often spontaneous. 7 This is relevant in cases dealing with police
interrogation and waiver of Miranda. Since their frontal lobes are less developed, adolescents are likely to
be more vulnerable and susceptible to police pressure.
Juvenile Defense Network ~ Lawyers Helping Lawyers Helping Kids

Footnotes:
_______________________________________________________________________
1. American Bar Association (ABA): Juvenile Justice Center. Adolescence, Brain Development, and Legal Culpability.
2004. Prior to the advancements of fMRI technology in the 1990s, the only studies done on adolescent brains were
performed on cadaver tissue, since X-rays and other means of testing were deemed potentially harmful to children.
2. Scott & Grisso. The Evolution of Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice Reform. J. Crim L. &
Criminology, 137. 1997. National Institue of Mental Health (NIMH). Imaging Study Shows Brain Maturing. 2004.
3. Kagan, J., Baird. “Brain and Behavioral Development During Childhood and Adolescence.” The New Cognitive
Neurosciences III. Gazzaniga (ed), MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. November, 2004.
4. Teicher, M. Child Abuse Hurts the Brain. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/05.22/01-brain.html.
5. Steinberg, L. & Scott. “Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and
the Juvenile Death Penalty.” American Psychologist. 58(12): 2003. Grisso, Id.
6. Beckman, Mary. “Crime, Culpability, and the Adolescent Brain.” Science Magazine. Vol. 305: 2004.
7. NIMH. Teenage Brain: A Work in Progress. 2001. Steinberg, Id.
Image Adapted From:
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Franklin Institute: The Human Brain. http://www.fi.edu/brain/index.htm
Online Resources:
_______________________________________________________________________
1. ABA: Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf
2. American Psychologist: Less Guilty by Reasons of Adolescence
http://ccjr.policy.net/cjedfund/resourcekit/Psychology_Less_Guilty.pdf
3. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Adolescent Brains Show Reduced Reward Anticipation.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2004/niaaa-25.htm
4. National Institute of Mental Health: Imaging Study Shows Brain Maturing.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/prbrainmaturing.cfm
5. PBS Frontline: Inside the Teenage Brain
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/
6. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of the American Bar Association, et al.
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/aba.pdf
7. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of the American Medical Association, et al.
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/ama.pdf
8. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of the American Psychological Association, et al.
http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/roper-v-simmons.pdf
9. Science Magazine: Crime, Culpability, and the Adolescent Brain
http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/research/lncd/papers/ScienceLunaOct2004.pdf
10. Science News: Teen Brains on Trial.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040508/bob9.asp
11. Juvenile Defense Network: Roper v. Simmons and ways to incorporate it into your practice.
http://www.youthadvocacyproject.org/pdfs/Roper%20fact%20sheet.pdf
This project is supported by Grant # 2005 JF-FX 0055 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Programs Division and subgranted to the Committee for Public Counsel Services.
Points of view in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Programs Division.
Juvenile Defense Network
Youth Advocacy Project/CPCS
Ten Malcolm X Blvd.
Roxbury, MA 02119
Tel: (617) 445-5640
http://www.youthadvocacyproject.org/jdn.htm