They were sentenced to die in prison for murders they committed as teens. Now they're walking free
Their crimes — violent and unforgiving — came in the earliest years of adulthood, long before their minds had fully matured. Some were incited by gangs, while others have been described as a "monster" or "natural-born murderer."
All of their choices ended lives and sealed their own fate: life in prison without the possibility of parole.
But decades later, a vast majority of them are getting a second chance at freedom.
In January 2024, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Mattis that sentencing people, ages 18 through 20 at the time of their offense, to life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional and amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment."
Massachusetts was the first state in the country to transform the law, experts said.
"Essentially, the brains of what we are calling 'late adolescents' or 'emerging adults' function very much like juveniles," Northampton attorney Paul Rudof, one of the lawyers who successfully challenged life sentences for individuals aged 18 to 20, told The Republican .
Those under the age of 18 were already not being sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Scholars with Harvard Law School and other criminal defendant advocacy groups have called the SJC decision involving 18- to 20-year-olds a "win for 'emerging adults' and neuroscience."
In Mattis cases, the seven-member state parole board weighs four key factors: lack of impulse control, risk-taking behavior, peer influence, and the potential for change as a young adult."
They also reviewed the crime itself, prison records and discipline, program participation, signs of remorse, risk assessments, release plans and input from the victim's family.
There were 210 cases that fell into the Mattis decision across Massachusetts. Of those, 137 people immediately became eligible for parole hearings and 32 decisions have been made — giving second chances to 25 people where there once was no hope. And causing some families to relive a "nightmare" they thought they left behind.
Here's what the parole process looks like.
Tanzerius Anderson testifies before the parole board. Click here to access the video on a mobile device.
Delayed parole hearings in Mass.
A glimmer of hope followed the court's decision, but it didn't come fast.
In July 2024, nine months after the decision was made, the parole board sent a letter to lawyers stating it had planned "to start scheduling hearings in September as time permits."
"We hope you will be understanding and patient as this is an unprecedented amount of additional cases to add to the Parole Board's calendar," the board stated.
Only one person had a hearing prior to September: A man who had been incarcerated for more than 55 years.
On June 3, 1967, 20-year-old Alfred Therrien and a friend traveled from Connecticut to Massachusetts with a handgun and a carbine. While driving through Framingham, Therrien robbed Natoli's Market.
Therrien, who was masked and armed, entered the store and ran into Pasqualina Natoli as she was leaving. Therrien told the woman that "this is a holdup," the parole board wrote. Natoli asked if it was a joke.
Therrien then shot Natoli in the heart.
Both men fled but returned to take money from the register. Therrien shot a person walking toward Natoli in the groin, seriously injuring him. The men drove away with the cash register, which contained $34.
Therrien later shot at police officers as they tried to arrest him.
In 2024, because of the court's decision, Therrien was re-sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years. This would've placed him in front of the parole board in 1985 had it been his original sentence.
Therrien, then 77 years old, appeared before the parole board for the first time on July 16, 2024. And on Dec. 18, 2024, he was granted parole.
But the board wasn't moving quickly on the other cases, and a lawsuit was filed by Robert Francis, Allan Alston, Tanzerius Anderson and others pushing for the hearings to be scheduled.
While Alston waited, his mother, 79, who he said always pushed him to be a better person, died. When he finally got his parole board hearing, tears rolled down his face at the mention of her name.
Alston is still waiting for a decision, but the board was impressed with the man who has been working to change his life long before the court ever asked him to.
"I think that Allan is a perfect example of the Mattis decision," Alston's lawyer, Lisa Newman-Polk, told MassLive. "And I think it is a tragedy that we would have been paying as a society to have him incarcerated for decades more until his death rather than out contributing and paying taxes and helping the next generation of youth."
The second Mattis parole hearing took place two months later, on Sept. 12: Charles Brown.
Brown had been incarcerated for more than 50 years.
During that time, he earned his bachelor's degree from Boston University, completed about 50 rehabilitative programs, participated in work release programs in the 1980s, and successfully completed 60 furloughs, which allow incarcerated people to leave the prison for short periods.
Brown also expressed remorse for his actions. And he was granted parole on the same day as Therrien.
As of Thursday, 67 hearings have been held since the 2024 decision. And 13 hearings have been publicly scheduled.
There have also been 23 people who have declined a hearing.
Tyrone Dixon testifies before the parole board. Click here to access the video on a mobile device.
Mattis case individuals granted parole
The Massachusetts Parole Board has released decisions on 32 individuals who presented their cases to the board over the past two years.
Of those, 25 were granted parole.
This includes some of the men who filed the lawsuit , another man who killed a 16-year-old girl in a shooting in a Lynn dance hall and a man who killed Cambridge Mayor E. Denise Simmons' son in 1995.
Two people were granted parole but had to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including one man who killed a mother of six during a masked robbery.
Not all of the decisions have been unanimous.
Michael Eagles told the parole board he agreed to be a lookout for Jeffrey Roberio in exchange for drugs to feed his addiction in 1986. On the night 79-year-old Lewis Jennings was killed, Eagles said he participated in the assault but still placed most of the blame on Roberio.
While in prison, Eagles has maintained sobriety for over three decades, has completed numerous rehabilitative programs and has matured, the parole board stated. Dr. Robert Kinscherff found him to be at low risk of recidivism or violence.
"Eagles has worked consistently throughout his commitment," the parole board wrote. "He is married and has the support of his wife and community."
Three parole board members voted to deny parole with a review hearing in two years. However, four parole board members voted in favor of parole, and it was granted once he completes six months in lower-security custody, which is expected to end in November.
He will then be subject to electronic monitoring for six months and must undergo drug testing and mental health counseling for adjustment.
Overall, 14 people (54%) have been released, while 12 more are in the process.
Tyrone Dixon testifies before the parole board. Click here to access the video on a mobile device.
However, they are not leaving their crimes behind.
Tyrone Dixon , 51, who was granted parole on Aug. 6 after 90 days in a lower security center, said he will continue to relive the day in 1992 when he killed a Taunton man until the day he dies.
"This is what you did. This is the pain you caused," he said he tells himself. "And you're not going to forget it."
He was 18 when he was convicted.
Mattis decision parole denials
Only seven people who committed their crimes between ages of 18 and 20 have been denied parole since the Mattis decision.
Almost all of the people who were denied had been incarcerated for more than 30 years before their hearings. Many of them did not participate in programming to better themselves, which was a concern for the Massachusetts Parole Board.
Robert Ferreira was 20 when he kidnapped, robbed and murdered George Ouelette, 45, in June 1987.
Ferreira and another man bound Ouelette's hands behind his back and tied his legs with jumper cables connected to a metal toolbox, rendering him unable to swim. His body was found in the Cape Cod Canal.
While he had visible injuries from when he was alive, his death was ruled a drowning.
Ferreira participated in some rehabilitative programming while in prison, such as addiction treatment, violence prevention and taking college courses through Boston University. However, the board felt he needed more, including Restorative Justice Programming.
The board took into consideration that he was only 20 when he killed Ouelette, but they were also "troubled by the facts and circumstances related to this crime."
He will have another chance at parole in two years.
Another man, Charles Dyous , maintains his innocence and refuses to talk about the crime that killed a teenager after a 1991 party.
Dyous appeared before the Massachusetts Parole Board on March 19. During parole board hearings, it's common to start with an apology from the person charged, talk about the crime, including answering questions from each of the seven parole board members, and to hear from people who both support and are against the person receiving parole.
However, Dyous, now 52, refused to talk about the crime he was charged with as a teenager.
"Mr. Dyous maintains his innocence and requested that the Board not ask any questions relating to the underlying crime," the parole board wrote in its August decision.
One board member voted to grant parole to a Long-Term Residential Program. However, other board members voted against parole.
On Aug. 14, he was denied parole with a review in 2 years.
"... evaluating Mr. Dyous' empathy and insight is significantly hampered by his refusal to answer questions surrounding the circumstances which led to Mr. Dyous' conviction," the board wrote.
One man, Robert Larkin, admitted during his parole board hearing that at the time of his crime, he didn't view the woman he killed "as a human being."
Robert Larkin testifies before the parole board. Click here to access the video on a mobile device.
But Larkin went on to tell the parole board he has recently been working to improve himself.
Soon after he was sentenced, Larkin was offered sex offender treatment. But he didn't want to do it.
"Because I knew I was doing the rest of my life in prison and I was still not ready to face it," he said. "I didn't want to do any work back then on myself."
He continued to make excuses and blame others, he said.
That changed after a couple of Supreme Judicial Court decisions.
Larkin said he became more interested in bettering himself when he heard discussions about life without the possibility of parole becoming unconstitutional for people who were around his age when they committed their crime.
"I am now a 50-year-old man who is grateful to have had the capacity to change. I now treat others with courtesy, respect, compassion and empathy. I am now self-aware. I am able to recognize when I am falling short," he told the parole board in April. "But I am also open to constructive criticism. I do hold myself accountable and will continue to do so moving forward."
Still, he has not completed the Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP).
The parole board denied his request for parole and suggested he complete SOTP and engage in programming to develop additional insight.
He is expected to have a review in three years.
Mattis decision a 'nightmare' for families
For the families, the letter informing them that the person who killed their loved one was getting a chance at parole was devastating.
Timothy Robishaw, the nephew of Anthony LoConte, who was killed by Robert Morganti in 1988, said the family picketed against the court's landmark decision and created a Change.org petition seeking to convince Massachusetts lawmakers to reverse the court's ruling or make stricter policy and guidelines.
"He showed no remorse until the possibility of getting out," Robishaw said about Morganti.
LoConte's family is adamant that Morganti has not changed his ways and that he is attempting to take advantage of the relatively new law. Morganti was under the age of 20 when he killed their loved one, but spent more than a decade running from police.
"When he first spoke [today] about being remorseful, it was the first time he said anything to our family," Cindy O'Donnell, LoConte's sister, said during a post-hearing interview.
"And I think the only reason he did say that was because he is trying to get out of jail," O'Donnell said.
She said she felt OK when she arrived at the hearing, but then broke down within the first five minutes.
"It's hard to compose yourself," O'Donnell said. "It's like rehashing everything all over again. It's like the trial is back again. You are reliving it; it's a nightmare."
Sonia Leal's sister believes that if there hadn't been a Supreme Judicial Court decision, Larkin wouldn't have taken any classes to better himself.
In November 1994, 20-year-old Larkin and two other men, Kevin Lynch and Shawn Kane, raped, beat and killed Leal, who was 17.
Sonia Leal's sister testifies before the parole board. Click here to access the video on a mobile device.
"The ruling treats murderers as victims while betraying those murdered and their families," she said, adding that she believes mercy is allowing Larkin to live out his life in prison.
Similarly, Hampden District Attorney Anthony D. Gulluni said the decision is an affront to these families.
"Our criminal justice system has begun to treat the defendant as victims and the victims become invisible," he previously told The Republican. "So now you'll have all these families who thought they had some finality after they walk out of a courtroom following a trial that was years in coming ... and now we're going to talk about rewriting a sentence for someone because they were a certain age?"
The county's top prosecutor and his staff have had to reach out to affected families to explain the change in the law and prepare them for what may come.
Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey said Larkin doesn't qualify under the Mattis decision because his violence and deception continued after the age of 21.
"There was no impulsiveness here. This was planned. This was deliberate. There was a cover-up. There was no peer pressure ... His brain was fully formed. He misled the police while he was 21. His actions while in prison, the violence towards others happened well beyond 21," the district attorney said. "I would suggest to you, board members, that he wasn't truthful today. Make no doubt about it. He began his most meaningful programming when there was word that Mattis was in process."
Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney John Verner testifies before the parole board. Click here to access the video on a mobile device.
And some of the families fear they won't be heard by the parole board.
Ray Yazbak, the brother of the man who was killed by Anderson, walked out before the parole board hearing was over, hurt by reliving the past.
"Unfortunately, today's hearing made that pain even worse," said John Verner, Suffolk County assistant district attorney.
Ray Yazbak thought that through the conversation and when the parole board told Anderson he had done a good job, he felt his side wasn't being fairly heard. And he left.
Anderson's lawyer, Newman-Polk, said she understood why the Yazbak family sees Anderson as "just an evil person who purposely executed an innocent man."
But, she said, "people are not black and white and very few would fit the definition of just plain evil."
She described the situation as a "high stress, highly spontaneous, impulsive situation that went sideways very quickly."
"The crime just doesn't make any sense," the lawyer said, describing the lack of violence before and after the crime. "But we do know Mattis, Diatchenko and that young people do things that don't make sense."
Lisa Newman-Polk, Tanzerius Anderson's lawyer, testifies before the parole board. Click here to access the video on a mobile device.
The board insists they take it all into account.
"The Parole Board remains deeply committed to conducting a fair, transparent and balanced parole process. These are complex cases that require careful deliberation and thoughtful decision-making to protect public safety and ensure the voices of victims and survivors are heard while providing incarcerated individuals with meaningful opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation and supervised-release readiness," said a parole board spokesperson.
Still, it doesn't end for all the families involved even if they're denied parole.
There hasn't been a decision following Morganti's hearing but he could come back before the parole board between one and five years from now.
"He got life without possibility of parole, I'm hoping that it still holds true to that," O'Donnell said. "I don't believe his mind wasn't developed. It was a premeditated thing. He didn't have to pull the trigger."
"I'm still angry about it [Mattis], I'm still upset about it, that my family has to go through this," she added.
Luis Fieldman contributed to this reporting.
More on the Massachusetts Parole Board
Read the original article on MassLive . Add MassLive as a Preferred Source by clicking here .
