that a Miller factor does or does not suggest a LWOP sentence; (2) whether the sentencing court gave proper consideration to the defendant's "chronological age and its hallmark features," Miller , 567 U.S. at 477-478, 132 S.Ct. 2455, by focusing on his proximity to the bright line age of 18 rather than his individual characteristics; and (3) whether the court properly considered the defendant's family and home environment, which the court characterized as "far from optimal," as weighing against his potential for rehabilitation. [ People v Taylor , 508 Mich. 938, 964 N.W.2d 38 (2021) (alteration in original).] II. LEGAL LANDSCAPE

This issue is currently scheduled for oral argument before the Michigan Supreme Court. See People v Taylor, 964 N.W.2d 38, 38 (2021) ("the parties shall address: (1) which party, if any, bears the burden of proof showing that a Miller factor does or does not suggest a [life without parole] sentence"). Until that is decided, the Court must rely on current caselaw, and there is nothing in Miller, Michigan statutory law, or Michigan caselaw that places the burden, or even suggests that a burden exists, on the prosecution to prove that a juvenile is irreparably corrupt beyond a reasonable doubt.