SJC rejects DA Michael O’Keefe intervention in juvenile offender case

By Wheeler Cowperthwaite
Posted

O’Keefe and the district attorneys for Norfolk, Plymouth and Essex counties asked to present their own experts during a upcoming court case that could allow the parole of prisoners convicted of first-degree murder who were young adults at the time of their crimes. The action stoked tensions between the four and Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins.

BOSTON — The state Supreme Judicial Court rebuffed four district attorneys — including Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe — last week from intervening in a case that involves parole eligibility for juvenile offenders serving life sentences.

O’Keefe and the district attorneys for Norfolk, Plymouth and Essex counties asked to present their own experts during an upcoming court case that could allow the parole of prisoners convicted of first-degree murder who were young adults at the time of their crimes. The court rejected the request.

The attempted intervention stoked tensions between Suffolk District Attorney Rachael Rollins, a Black woman, and the other district attorneys. O’Keefe has been critical of Rollins’ policies in the past.

The crux of the case involves research into brain development in emerging adults and at what age young people should be held criminally accountable for the rest of their lives.

The case in question involves Nyasani Watt and Sheldon Mattis. Watt, 10 days shy of his 18th birthday, shot and killed Jaivon Blake, 16, in Dorchester and received a sentence of life with eligibility for parole after 15 years. Co-defendant Sheldon Mattis, 18 at the time, gave Watt the gun and received a mandatory sentence of life without parole.

In 2012, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional, the Supreme Judicial Court followed suit. The decision applied retroactively, allowing those convicted of first-degree murder as juveniles to apply for parole after serving 15 years. In December 2019, the high court upheld Mattis’ and Watt’s convictions but remanded the case back to Suffolk Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing on the constitutionality of Blake’s sentence.

The justices said in their opinion that it has been six years since they last visited the issue of brain development in juveniles, the research has progressed and it is likely time to “revisit the boundary” between 17- and 18-year-old defendants.

“We can only do so, however, on an updated record reflecting the latest advances in scientific research on adolescent brain development and its impact on behavior,” they said.

The four district attorneys filed the motion to either vacate the order, and have the Legislature decide when to apply life without parole sentences, or allow them to intervene in the case and present their own expert witnesses during the evidentiary hearing.

“The critical part here is, the only thing the scientific, the medical professionals agree on, is young adult brains don’t develop until their 20s,” Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey said.

Morrissey said when he reached out to Rollins she told him that she would be in favor of raising the age for imposing a life-without-parole sentence.

Morrissey, O’Keefe, Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz and Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett then filed the motion to intervene in the case.

“If the court steps into that pond, we want to make sure they have a variety of expert opinions before them, before they make that decision,” Morrissey said. “We didn’t seek to undo or interfere with the underlying case.”

“This motion is nothing more than a misogynistic wolf in sheep’s clothing,” she said. “Never has this Court allowed one (let alone four) elected district attorneys to intervene in another district attorney’s matter.”

Rollins refers to the four district attorneys as “the men” and said she does not require their “assistance,” referring to a line in a footnote of the district attorneys’ motion, stating what their involvement would be if the motion to intervene were granted.

“The suggestion that their assistance is required is as misogynistic and paternalistic as it is racist,” she said.

Morrissey said the motion to intervene has nothing to do with Rollins as a person and everything to do with what expert testimony will form the basis for the decision to grant, or deny, parole to young adults convicted of first-degree murder. The district attorneys can still file an amicus, or friend of the court, brief.

“You have to ask, in a democracy, with the free exchange of ideas, why is it the first thing you do is attack someone you perceive has different ideas than you?” Morrissey said.

Morrissey said Rollins did not have to force the issue of an unfair sentencing disparity between the juvenile and his teenage co-defendant, because she could have asked a judge to reduce the charge to second-degree murder.

Cruz said it was his responsibility to speak for victims and their families.

“We don’t need to go through this,” Cruz said.

Deciding where the line between juvenile and adult is should be left to the judiciary, with full hearings, witnesses and debate, Cruz and Morrissey said.

“Let’s face it, some people want it moved to 26,” Cruz said. “At what point are you accountable for your actions?”

O’Keefe said in a statement that disagreement with Rollins now results in being called “a racist or a misogynist or both.”

“This is an issue which will have statewide implications for families of murder victims. We sought to have a voice at the trial level where the record upon which the SJC will ultimately rule will be created,” he said.