(Source: MIRS.news, Published 01/22/2025) An assistant county prosecutor asked the Michigan Supreme Court not to expand the eligibility of “juvenile lifers” to seek possible parole to 19- and 20-year-olds. 

Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Jon Wojtala, who oversees the department’s juvenile lifer division, acknowledged the 5-2 Democratic majority may do just that, but it would be a burden on the court. 

“I do recognize that’s what the court’s going to do, plain and simple,” he said, noting that his office could see 400 to 500 re-sentencings if the court sides with the defendants. 

“That’s 400 to 500 families that will once again have to deal with the fact that the person that murdered their loved one is back in court and they’re going to have to reopen all those,” Wojtala added. “It’s a burden upon the courts; it’s a burden upon the prosecution; it’s a burden upon the defense bar, but it’s mostly a burden upon . . . the victims’ families in these cases.” 

Mayo Menlo, an attorney with the State Appellate Defender Office, who represents defendant Andrew Czarnecki, countered that just because a youthful offender may have been mature enough to make certain decisions, like to marry or to vote, doesn’t mean they are eligible to receive mandatory life-without-parole sentences. 

“The logical fallacy sort of breaks down there. The idea that old enough means old enough to be held accountable is one thing, but to be held accountable with a mandatory sentence that guarantees someone will die in prison is quite another,” she argued. 

To date, the court has established the threshold for resentencing hearings for juveniles convicted of life offenses at age 18, but the current appeals on behalf of Czarnecki, Jon Antonio Poole, and Montario Marquise Taylor want to extend the age limit to age 20 or younger. The Poole case could also determine whether enforcement is retroactive. 

Justice Elizabeth Welch asked whether rehabilitation should play a role, especially when an offender is younger. 

Wojtala responded that some science shows that there is a high recidivism rate for young offenders, and while rehabilitation is important, other interests exist. 

“There needs to be an example given to others, don’t kill people and if you do commit this crime, this is the sentence that . . . you’re going to have to serve,” he said. 

Justice Richard Bernstein and other justices questioned how the court should draw a bright line between whether 18, 19, or 20-year-olds who commit murder are mature enough to accept the consequences. 

Justices also questioned why the defendants’ attorneys asked the court to draw that line and not the Legislature. 

“The Legislature has yet to draw a constitutional line in this area,” Menlo replied. 

Katie Jory, senior assistant prosecutor for Genesee County whose office prosecuted Taylor, told the court that it seems the line at what age is too young to understand is fluid, as some studies suggest full brain development could occur as late as age 25 or 30. 

“It seems like there’s always going to be a moving line, and that is why the people contend it should be up to the Legislature to draw that line,” argued Jory. 

In 2016, Taylor, then five months shy of his 21st birthday, casually walked into 45-year-old Montel Wright’s home in October 2016, shot him eight times and left him to die, Jory said. 

“What is indecent is to provide an opportunity for free life to Montario Taylor after he took the life of Montel Wright in cold blood,” she said.  

Poole, Taylor and Czarnecki were each convicted of first-degree murder for crimes they committed at ages 18, 20 and 19, respectively. They were each sentenced to mandatory life-without-parole. 

The court’s decision will also affect People v. Adonte Bouie, which is being held in abeyance for a ruling on Poole, Taylor and Czarnecki. Bouie is serving a life term for conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder.