Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Prisoners eligible for parole under recent SJC ruling sue over delay in hearings
“At the current rate, it will take years before all of the Plaintiffs have had their initial parole hearings," the complaint filed last week said.
Seven incarcerated men who became eligible for parole after a 2024 Supreme Judicial Court decision are suing over what they call unjust delays in scheduling parole hearings.
Last January, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the decision Commonwealth v. Sheldon Mattis that adults under the age of 21 cannot be sentenced to life in prison without parole. In Massachusetts, first degree murder charges always carry a sentence of life without parole.
The plaintiffs, initially sentenced serving life without the possibility of parole, were 18, 19, and 20 years old at the time of their crime, or “emerging adults.” Each man has already served more than 15 years in prison, making them parole eligible, according to the complaint filed in the Supreme Judicial Court last week. None have had a parole hearing or had a hearing scheduled.
Advertisement:
There have been 18 Mattis parole hearings since the Mattis decision, the complaint says, citing the Committee for Public for Public Counsel Services. Eight people, including someone incarcerated beginning in 1970, have been granted freedom through Mattis.
Lawyer Ryan Schiff, who argued the Mattis case in front of the SJC, previously told Boston.com that more than 200 people were affected by the ruling. The complaint said 127 “emerging adults” are already parole eligible, with the “vast majority” waiting for their hearings.
"youthful offenders" eligible for parole
The complaint says the plaintiffs — Robert Francis, Allen Alston, Tanzerius Anderson, Lewis Franklin, Jabrai Copney, Sam Smith, and Christopher Middlemiss — are all currently held in minimum or maximum security prisons in Massachusetts.
Advertisement:
“Some have served multiple decades in prison, while others have only recently reached the fifteen-year mark,” the complaint said. “Either way, they are entitled to a parole hearing immediately.”
The complaint cites that the Massachusetts Parole Board is required to hold a hearing within 60 days before the parole eligibility date for people serving life sentences.
“At the current rate, it will take years before all of the Plaintiffs have had their initial parole hearings. Additional emerging adults will become parole-eligible every year moving forward, potentially causing additional delays,” the complaint said.
The filing names Governor Maura Healey, Terrence Reidy, as Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, Tina Hurley as Chair of the Massachusetts Parole Board, and the Massachusetts Parole Board as defendants.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the board said board members “remain deeply committed to ensuring that parole hearings for individuals impacted by the Mattis ruling are conducted as expeditiously as possible.”
“This is a complex process that requires thorough preparation and close collaboration with stakeholders, including legal representatives, parole board members, and support organizations,” the statement read. “We will continue to work diligently to schedule and conduct hearings efficiently while upholding the integrity of the process and ensuring that all parties are adequately prepared.”
Advertisement:
Lisa Newman-Polk, who represents three of the seven men, said “this lawsuit is needed to bring the Mattis decision into reality.”
“In getting to know the life stories of my clients — the severe childhood trauma, the impulsivity of the crimes, the people who have stood by their sides for decades — it’s clear that the Mattis decision rectified a devastating societal wrong by allowing them the opportunity for societal redemption,” Newman-Polk said in an email.
A Parole Board spokesperson declined to comment on ongoing litigation, but said the board is “considering additional options to expedite these hearings in accordance with the law.”
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com