By Stevie Leahy
Photo of William Allen courtesy of his attorneys. He is smiling slightly and wearing a red graduation robe , dark pants, and work boots, and holding up a “ServSafe” Certificate.
In 1997, William Allen was convicted of armed robbery and felony murder and is currently serving a sentence of life without parole (“LWOP”). At the time of these crimes, Mr. Allen was twenty years old. For individuals like Mr. Allen, the executive clemency process is currently the only avenue to correct the missteps of the legal system, specifically as to sentencing under since-changed laws. The urgent need for clemency in his case raises the broader question of whether LWOP sentences for late adolescents are even constitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Increased use of clemency as well as judicial action to extend the age limit are two measures that would also work toward mitigating disproportionate rates of incarceration for Black and Brown individuals within the state.
Within Massachusetts, clemency exists in two forms: a pardon (forgiveness of the underlying offense) or commutation (shortening or ending of the underlying sentence). The complicated process has several stages: after a petition is submitted, the Parole Board conducts a hearing. The Board will then make a recommendation to Governor Baker as to whether clemency should be granted. Governor Baker has one year to act on the petition and a failure to act within that timeframe results in denial. As required by the Massachusetts Constitution, Governor Baker will solicit the advice and consent of the Governor’s Council. Any decision by the Governor to grant clemency will not be given effect unless it is approved by this Council. Because the judiciary has traditionally viewed clemency as “an act of grace,” as opposed to a legal right, courts are reluctant to wade into the question of what the process should entail.
There has been no activity in any of these stages during the Baker Administration until very recently. Since 2014, the Parole Board has conducted only two commutation hearings, and many petitions have languished for years (over 240 pending). The Board conducted one of those two hearings for Mr. Allen on June 15, 2021, represented by Attorneys Patty DeJuneas, Kristine McDonald, and retired Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) Justice Robert Cordy. At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Allen started by expressing apologies and remorse to the victim’s family and accepting full responsibility for his choices, mirroring the requirements for clemency under the Governor’s Guidelines.
Following this statement, Parole Board Chair Gloriann Moroney discussed a 2017 change in Massachusetts law related to “felony murder.” Prior to the change, an individual could be guilty of felony murder when they commit a felony that causes the death of another person. Mr. Allen was a participant in a robbery in 1994 (a felony), during which another individual committed a murder. Even though Mr. Allen did not commit the murder, because he participated in the robbery, he was sentenced to LWOP under the felony murder law in place at the time. This law changed in Commonwealth v. Brown, and under current sentencing rules Mr. Allen would not be sentenced to LWOP. Despite this change, Mr. Allen has no opportunity for parole or re-sentencing and has exhausted his legal options. The victim’s family and the prosecuting District Attorney testified that they would recommend commutation of Mr. Allen’s sentence. This petition is ideal for the Board to recommend commutation, not only because of the 2017 change in law, but because of the extraordinary actions he has taken to transform his life and the lives of others during his incarceration.
During the three-plus-hour hearing of Mr. Allen, the Board asked leading, helpful, and often positive questions. One question asked during Mr. Allen’s hearing connects to a larger dialogue happening in many states. Chair Moroney asked: “At the time of the murder, you had just turned twenty years old, is that right?” In 1994, Mr. Allen was considered a “late adolescent” at twenty years old. Juvenile sentencing is categorized by a bright line cut at eighteen years old. Nearly a decade ago, the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama held that mandatory sentences of LWOP for individuals under eighteen violate the Eighth Amendment. In response, a year later the Massachusetts SJC held that LWOP for juveniles was unconstitutional under the Declaration of Rights, and that the Supreme Court decision prohibiting mandatory LWOP sentences for juveniles applied retroactively. “Miller hearings” are now conducted to review and re-sentence juveniles with mandatory LWOP.
Although Mr. Allen was past that bright line, scientific research provides strong support that the bright line cut at eighteen is not reflective of the realities of emerging adult brain development. Other states, like Washington, have judicially extended the prohibition to individuals up to twenty years old. Massachusetts’ courts now have the opportunity to do the same. In 2020, the SJC mandated reconsideration of the LWOP sentencing of a late adolescent who had turned eighteen mere hours before the commission of the crime he was sentenced for. The SJC acknowledged that, although it has declined to extend the prohibition thus far, “…‘researchers continue to study the age range at which most individuals reach adult neurobiological maturity, with evidence that . . . [certain] brain functions are not likely to be fully matured until around age twenty-two,’ and that such ‘research may relate to the constitutionality of sentences of life without parole for individuals other than juveniles.’”
On September 16, 2021, for the second time in the Baker Administration, the Parole Board made a unanimous recommendation for the sentence of Mr. Allen to be commuted. After years where no petitions for clemency moved through the process, Governor Baker, the Board, and the Council finally seem poised to grant a clemency petition. Mr. Allen’s unique and powerful story has now secured the necessary Parole Board recommendation. However, in terms of Massachusetts law, it broadly illustrates two important questions that the Commonwealth is grappling with. First, how can our state clemency process function efficiently and meaningfully for incarcerated individuals? As a constitutionally mandated process, it should be a real option for individuals like Mr. Allen and others, and reform is necessary. Second, and related, will Massachusetts extend the prohibition on LWOP sentencing for late adolescents beyond eighteen?
The resolutions to both questions would have a profound impact on Mr. Allen and other incarcerated individuals. As part of Northeastern University School of Law’s Legal Skills in Social Context program, a group of first year students will continue to monitor LWOP sentencing in Massachusetts in the coming year. Focus will be on Governor Baker and the Advisory Council as they take necessary next steps for moving Mr. Allen’s petition through the clemency process.
Readers can view the June 15, 2021, Massachusetts Parole Board hearing on William Allen’s clemency petition here.
Stevie Leahy (she/her/hers) is an Assistant Professor at Northeastern University School of Law. Professor Leahy teaches in the Legal Skills in Social Context program, which provides first-year students the opportunity for collaboration with a community organization to work together on a social justice project. Prior to teaching, Professor Leahy worked in commercial litigation at Latham & Watkins, Goodwin Procter, and Aeton Law Partners. She earned her juris doctorate in 2005 from Pepperdine University School of Law, graduating magna cum laude.