State’s High Court Summarily Denies Unprecedented Effort by Four Male DAs to Intervene and Interfere with Suffolk County Case

DA Rollins’s opposition to their motion granted without a hearing

BOSTON, July 9, 2020 —In a repudiation of efforts by four multi-term district attorneys from other counties, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court late yesterday summarily denied their motion to intervene and interfere in a Suffolk County matter.  The case in question had been remanded to the Suffolk Superior Court to reconsider the current state of research on brain development in young adults and its implications for life sentences without parole for young adults convicted of murder.

With a one sentence order, the SJC brought to a halt the highly unusual effort by Cape and Islands DA Michael O’Keefe, Essex DA Jonathan Blodgett, Norfolk DA Michael W. Morrissey, and Plymouth DA Timothy Cruz to have the high court vacate its own decision to remand the sentencing of Sheldon Mattis to Suffolk Superior.  Without citing any precedent – because there is none – the men requested that the SJC either defer to the Legislature or permit them to intervene and fully participate in the upcoming Suffolk County hearing.

In her opposition filing, DA Rollins stated, “[t]he motion, essentially to intervene in a Suffolk County prosecution, is without precedent or legal basis. In a pleading that strains credulity, these four men claim that their ‘interests’ would not be ‘adequately represented’ by the Suffolk County District Attorney in a Suffolk County case.”  She went on to say, “Query: what is it about District Attorney Rollins that makes these four men so worried about and interested in her ability to handle Suffolk County’s investigations, cases, and appeals?”

The filing said the motion of the four men “is nothing more than a misogynistic wolf in sheep’s clothing. Never has this Court allowed one (let alone four) elected district attorneys to intervene in another district attorney’s matter. That long-standing record should be left intact. The motion should be denied on the papers.”

The SJC obviously agreed.

At issue is the case of Mattis and co-defendant Nyasani Watt, who were convicted in 2013 of first degree murder in the shooting death of Jaivon Blake. Mr. Watt, who pulled the trigger and murdered Jaivon Blake, was 10 days shy of turning 18 at the time of the murder, and was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years. Mr. Mattis, who identified the victims and provided Mr. Watt with the weapon, was 18 years and eight months old at the time of the murder and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole under a joint venture theory.

In its order last month to remand the case to Suffolk Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing, the SJC affirmed the convictions of both men and said that it would not revisit case law (Diatchenko I) regarding life sentences with the possibility of parole for juveniles, but noted that young adult brain research has progressed in the six years since Diatchenko. “It likely is time for us to revisit the boundary between defendants who are seventeen years old and thus shielded from the most severe sentence … and those who are eighteen years old and therefore exposed to it,” the June 4, 2020 decision states.

The high court said the remand “to the Superior Court for development of the record with regard to research on brain development after the age of seventeen… will allow us to come to an informed decision as to the constitutionality of sentencing young adults to life without the possibility of parole.”

“Remember, it was the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office that actually prosecuted Mr. Mattis and Mr. Watt. We secured guilty verdicts and stood by the victims, survivors, and their family members during the grueling court process. We have also notified them of every decision and of the recent filings and will continue to do so throughout this entire process. We filed a brief with the SJC in support of the jury verdict and guilty findings.

“For the four men to imply that my experienced and able team of Assistant District Attorneys can’t handle an evidentiary hearing is outrageous. The professionals here are some of the Commonwealth’s most skilled in handling cases involving homicides, gun violence, and other litigation (including emergency petitions to the SJC).

“We look forward to conducting the evidentiary hearing on the development of the brains of emerging adults,’’ said DA Rollins. “If the SJC were to eventually find that the science has advanced and Mr. Mattis’s sentence was unconstitutional as applied to a young adult, he will remain in prison until he is eligible for parole and then the Parole Board will decide when, or if, he should ever be released. During the Parole process, victims and survivors are always heard and their opinions are valued.  But we are a very long way from any of that.  Today, we appreciate that a frivolous motion was summarily denied.  Now we can get back to the hard work of solving crimes and mending strained relationships with the community that we serve.’’

Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins’ office serves the communities of Boston, Chelsea, Revere, and Winthrop, Mass. The office handles over 25,000 cases a year. More than 160 attorneys in the office practice in nine district and municipal courts, Suffolk Superior Court, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court, and the Boston Juvenile Courts. The office employs some 300 people and offers a wide range of services and programs to serve anyone who comes in contact with the criminal justice system. This office is committed to educating the public about the services we provide, our commitment to crime prevention, and our dedication to keeping the residents of Suffolk County safe.