Whether Texas may continue to impose, and carry out previously imposed, death sentences for which future dangerousness is or was used to determine death eligibility for defendants who were under 21 years old at the time of the crime

QUESTION PRESENTED Over the past fifteen years, neuroscientific research has established with scientific certainty that because of continuing brain development until sometime in our early 20’s, the neurological basis for a person’s character, and hence his or her character, is not fully formed prior to the age of 21. Because of this, it is now clear that there can be no reliable prediction concerning future dangerousness for a person who has committed a capital murder prior to the age of 21. Billy Wardlow was 18 at the time of his murder. These facts raise the following question: Whether, under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Texas may continue to impose, and carry out previously imposed, death sentences for which future dangerousness is or was used to determine death eligibility for defendants who were under 21 years old at the time of the crime? i PROCEEDINGS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE State of Texas v. Billy Joe Wardlow, No. CR12764, 76" District Court of Titus County, Texas (judgment February 11, 1995) (trial proceeding) Wardlow v. State, No, 72,102 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (unpublished) (direct appeal) Ex parte Wardlow, No. WR-58,548-01 (Tex.Crim.App.) (unpublished) (initial state habeas corpus) Wardlow v. Director, 2017 WL 3614315 (E.D.Tex. 2017) (federal habeas corpus) Wardlow v. Davis, 750 Fed. Appx. 374 (5" Cir. 2018) (certificate of appealability application) Wardlow v. Davis, __ U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 390 (2019) (petition for writ of certiorari) Ex parte Wardlow, 2020 WL 2059742 (Tex.Crim.App. 2020) (subsequent state habeas corpus) ii