Nathan’s attorney, William Swift, argued before the court Thursday that Nathan’s situation was inconsistent with the principles laid out in Miller, as Nathan will very likely be dead before he would be eligible to be let out of prison on parole if he has to serve more than 60 years first.

Essentially, Swift contends multiple constitutional sentences could have a combined effect of being unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear similar cases. Justices on the Missouri Supreme Court questioned if it would be more prudent to wait for a clear direction from a higher court.

Swift said that consecutive life sentences are the functional equivalent of life in prison without parole, which the U.S. Supreme Court has already weighed in on in the Miller case, ruling that juvenile offenders should be treated differently.

Swift also said that with his current sentence, Nathan has no real chance of demonstrating maturity or rehabilitation.

The Miller ruling mandates that a juvenile offender’s age and background should be considered before handing down a life sentence. In Nathan’s resentencing, new jurors heard about his diminished mental capacity, sexual abuse in childhood, homelessness and his relatives’ drug habits.

Evan Buchheim, attorney for the state, acknowledged other states found similar cases “violated the spirit” of the Miller decision, but maintained the court was well within its rights to sentence Nathan for each separate offense.

Shake off your afternoon slump with the oft-shared and offbeat news of the day, hand-brewed by our online news editor, Mandy St. Amand. Sign up! * I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.