A Lesson of More Effective Counsel

Students in the Race and Justice Clinic reversed a de facto life sentence by advocating for the mitigating factors of their client's youthfulness.

Students in the Race and Justice Clinic plunged into a complex and deeply impactful case last fall, a case that would test their skills, determination and their ability to navigate the ever-evolving terrain of criminal justice reform.

The case centered on a young man imprisoned since 1998. He was incarcerated at 17 for a crime that had led to a sentence of 61 years plus 17 he was serving on other charges—a sentence that was, in essence, a de facto life sentence, as he was not eligible for parole. Without early release opportunities, his sentence became one of the longest life sentences in Washington state imposed against a juvenile.

What made the case particularly significant was the broader movement against life sentences for juveniles, spurred by landmark decisions like Miller v. Alabama, which ruled that children under 18 should not be sentenced to life without parole without consideration of mitigating factors related to their youth.

For the students — Talia Cabrera '24, Julia De La Fuente, 3L, William Kennick '24 and Grace Pakocz '24 — this wasn't just about legal research and petition filings; it was about fighting for a young man who, despite committing the grave offense of murder as a child, had shown remarkable rehabilitation and growth over the years. It was also about confronting the legal system's long-standing biases, especially around racial disparities in sentencing.

The clinic students worked tirelessly to prepare, ensuring they had the evidence and expert testimony that could make the difference.

Hard to Believe

“We spent our weekends sitting in the clinic space, pouring through the court records from the past 20 years and looking at each other saying, ‘That is insane, right?’” recalled Julia De La Fuente, a 3L who returned to work on the case as an advanced clinic student. “We thought through the ineffective assistance of counsel argument based on our experience as students saying we would never ever do what this [original defense] attorney had done. If the court would sign off on the actions of this attorney, what were they endorsing?”

The Washington Supreme Court had previously affirmed the life sentence, with the same court-appointed public defender who had represented the client at trial returning with no new information for the judge to reconsider. That is why the clinic students sought post-conviction relief through a petition with the Court of Appeals, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and other state constitutional violations.

Their argument was simple but powerful: the defense attorney at sentencing had failed to present critical mitigating evidence about the client's youth—his impulsivity, the influence of peers, his inability to escape a toxic home environment, and most crucially, his potential for rehabilitation. The petition, laden with evidence and expert evaluations, laid out a case for a sentence reduction and the opportunity for resentencing. They believed that had the original lawyer presented the right arguments and evidence, the judge would have been swayed to offer a more just sentence, one that recognized the client's potential for reform.

De La Fuente said that the most challenging aspect of sorting through the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was addressing which aspects of their claim to emphasize.

“I think that where courts and lawyers get into trouble is over-assuming their knowledge of youthfulness, which is fundamentally what happened to our client in 2018. The original attorney did not have an expert evaluation and submitted bare assertions about juvenile brain science. The resentencing judge said that she knew kids and knew signs of youthfulness, and said she knew our client was not youthful. The state Supreme Court equally relied on their own intuition,” said De La Fuente. “The bottom line is: Our client was not given a fair shake in prior cases because he did not have an expert to explain his actions as they fit into the Miller factors.”

Unpredictable Legal Process

Just a week before the oral argument was set to take place, a shift occurred. After months of negotiation and legal back-and-forth, the prosecutor agreed to what the clinic had been fighting for. The client could be resentenced.

“Our client is in his 40s now and is what some might call a ‘model prisoner,’” said Professor Kimberly Ambrose, who is director of the Race and Justice Clinic. “He works in bookkeeping and has done all the programming available to him. He is a leader in the Black Prisoner Caucus, has maintained good connections with his relatives and has tremendous community support. Keeping him in prison is not necessary to protect the public.”

As the case moved forward, the students were able to witness firsthand how complex and unpredictable the legal process could be.

Believing that the matter was settled, De La Fuente stopped preparing for oral argument in the appellate court. However, the courtroom drama took an unexpected turn. The prosecutor's office, after agreeing to the resentencing, submitted an order for resentencing which was signed by the sentencing judge. But without warning, the judge expressed reservations, even going so far as to rescind the order he had initially signed. It was a tense moment—a test of everything the students had worked for.

Just when it seemed like they might lose the fruit of their labor, the judge, after much deliberation and a review of the filings sent to the Court of Appeals, decided to stand by his initial order. The resentencing was back on.

Direct Client Advocacy

In the final stages of the case, the students were able to meet with the elected prosecuting attorney, a crucial opportunity that allowed them to advocate directly for the client and to highlight the racial disparities that existed in the criminal justice system.

“Part of the reason we went to the elected prosecutor to negotiate is because they have been clear that they are concerned about the racial disparities that exist in the juvenile and criminal legal systems. The elected prosecutor understands that there are differences between young people and adults and how they should be punished,” said Ambrose. “My students prepared so hard for their meeting with the prosecutor and persuaded them to review the case. And that's how we ended up where we are right now. The prosecutor was willing to listen to some of the concerns that my students were raising about how their office thinks about juveniles.”

As part of the agreement, the state will be asking for a sentence of 46 years, which is the low end of the standard range. The clinic students currently working on the resentencing hearing, Kayla Lee and Benjamin Ratcliff, both 3L students, and their co-counsel will be limited to asking for no less than 20 years. If their proposed new sentence is granted, their client would serve four more years.

As they look ahead to the final hearings and the possibility of a fairer sentence, the students' work and advocacy have taught them significant lessons about the importance of providing effective counsel and the impact it has in criminal justice reform. Not only were they gaining valuable legal experience, but they were also participating in a movement to address the systemic flaws in the criminal justice system, especially in relation to young people of color who had been disproportionately affected by harsh sentencing laws.