Corrected Brief for the Committee for Public Counsel Services as Amicus Curiae in Support of Messrs. Mattis and Robinson
John J. Barter
Benjamin H. Keehn
SimpleOriginal

Summary

Granting parole consideration after 15 years balances public safety with giving young offenders serving LWOP sentences a chance for release based on maturity and rehabilitation.

2023 | State Juristiction

Corrected Brief for the Committee for Public Counsel Services as Amicus Curiae in Support of Messrs. Mattis and Robinson

Keywords late adolescents; capacity to change; LWOP; Diatchenko; parole eligibility; rehabilitation; brain development
Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 2.40.56 PM

Summary of Argument

1. Since 2014, the Massachusetts Parole Board has held about seventy parole hearings for the juvenile homicide offenders who were serving mantatory life-without-parole sentences for first degree murder convictions when Diatchenko I was decided, and who became eligible for parole consideration as a result of that decision. An analysis of the outcomes of those hearings makes clear that the remedy fashioned by this Court for the Diatchenko cohort can protect public safety and provide members of a class of homicide offenders originally sentenced to serve unconstitutional life-without-parole sentences with a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.

2. Dirceau Semedo, Alfred Therrien, and William Florentino are late adolescent homicide offenders. Each was charged with a homicide that occurred when they were between eighteen and twenty years of age, each was convicted of first degree murder, and each is serving life without the possibility of parole, as mandated by G..L. c. 265,§2 and G..L.c.127,§133A. Collectively, they have been behind bars for 131 years. Their criminal conduct and the trajectory of their lives before and after prison embody the validity of the "central intuition" on which Diatchenko I is based—that young people "who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change." Montgomery v. Louisiana 577 U.S. 190, 212 (2016). Infra at 18-27.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Since 2014, the Massachusetts Parole Board has conducted approximately 70 parole hearings for juvenile homicide offenders serving mandatory life sentences without parole. These individuals became eligible for parole consideration following the Diatchenko I decision. Analysis of these hearings demonstrates that the remedy established for the Diatchenko cohort effectively balances public safety with the provision of meaningful opportunities for release based on evidence of maturity and rehabilitation.

Dirceau Semedo, Alfred Therrien, and William Florentino are examples of late adolescent homicide offenders serving life sentences without parole. Their cases illustrate the core principle of Diatchenko I, which recognizes the potential for transformation in young individuals who commit serious crimes. Despite their past actions, these individuals have demonstrated significant growth and rehabilitation during their 131 combined years of incarceration, supporting the notion that "young people... are capable of change." (Montgomery v. Louisiana 577 U.S. 190, 212 (2016))

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Since 2014, the Massachusetts Parole Board has conducted approximately 70 parole hearings for individuals who committed murder as juveniles and were originally sentenced to life in prison without parole. These hearings were made possible by a court decision (Diatchenko I) that gave these offenders the chance to apply for parole. The results of these hearings show that it is possible to protect the public while also giving these individuals a chance to be released if they have shown growth and rehabilitation.

Dirceau Semedo, Alfred Therrien, and William Florentino are three individuals who committed murder between the ages of 18 and 20. They were all sentenced to life in prison without parole. Together, they have spent over 130 years behind bars. Their stories demonstrate that even young people who commit serious crimes can change and mature. This is the idea behind the Diatchenko I decision, which recognized that young offenders have the potential for rehabilitation.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Since 2014, many young people who were sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole for murder have had a chance to get out. About 70 of them have had hearings to see if they should be released. These hearings show that giving these young people a chance at parole can keep the public safe and give them a chance to prove they have changed and grown up.

Dirceau Semedo, Alfred Therrien, and William Florentino are three young men who killed someone when they were teenagers. They have all been in prison for a long time, a total of 131 years. Their stories show that even young people who do terrible things can change. They were all sentenced to life in prison without parole, but now they have a chance to get out if they can prove they have changed.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Some kids who were sent to jail for a long time for doing very bad things are now getting a chance to get out. They were told they would never get out, but now they can because of a new rule. About 70 kids like this have had a chance to talk to a group of people who decide if they can go free. These kids have shown that they have grown up and changed for the better, so they are being let out of jail.

Three young people named Dirceau, Alfred, and William did bad things when they were teenagers. They were all sent to jail for life without any chance of getting out. They have been in jail for a very long time, over 100 years all together. But they have changed a lot since they were kids. They have learned from their mistakes and become better people. They are like the kids in a story that says even kids who do bad things can change and become good people.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Corrected Brief for the Committee for Public Counsel Services as Amicus Curiae in Support of Messrs. Mattis and Robinson, Commonwealth v. Mattis & Commonwealth v. Robinson, Nos. SJC-11693, SJC-09265 (Mass. S. J. Ct. Jan. 17, 2023).

    Highlights