October Term 2001 · Docket 00-957

Does a juvenile offender's future danger justify life without parole?

Kansas seeks to keep a juvenile in prison for life. The defendant argues his youth requires a chance to change.

Official caption
Kansas v. Crane
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Stovall argued the Kansas Supreme Court misread prior law.

    Mr. Donham argued the dispute centers on why the offender is dangerous.

    The Chief Justice noted the case is submitted.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Kansas argues the state must protect the public from a dangerous youth. The defendant argues his age makes him less blameworthy.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 30, 2001.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Kansas wants to keep the juvenile in prison for life.

The defendant wants a chance to leave prison.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Kansas argues the state must protect the public from danger.

The defendant argues his youth makes him less blameworthy.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

The Chief Justice asked the case is submitted.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how courts treat young offenders. It shapes prison sentences for juveniles nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON