May 3, 2010: John Odgren sentenced

ED-YEAR-OLD JOHN ODGREN IS
SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON
WITHOUT PAROLE.
HE WAS CONVICTED OF STABBING
DEATH OF FELLOW STUDENT, THREE
YEARS AGO.
ON FRIDAY ODGREN'S ATTORNEY
FILED MOTION WITH THE TRIAL
JUDGE CHALLENGING THE
MASSACHUSETTS LAW THAT REQUIRES
JUVENILES TO BE TRIED AND
SENTENCED AS ADULTS IN FIRST
DEGREE MURDER CASES.
AND JOHN ODGREN'S ATTORNEY,
JONATHAN SHAPIRO IS HERE,
WELCOME, JONATHAN.

>> GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> Emily: FIRST AN UPDATE ON
JOHN ODGREN.
I UNDERSTAND HE'S ACTUALLY IN
BRIDGEWATER RIGHT NOW, IS THAT
CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.
WE WERE ABLE TO ARRANGE WITH THE
COOPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS TO HAVE HIM TRANSFER
RED THERE OWN FRIDAY.

>> Emily: HE GOES FOR A MONTH
WORTH OF EVALUATION THEN WHAT TO
EVALUATE HIM FOR THE NEED OF
PSYCHIATRIC CARE AND TREATMENT.
WE THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT
HE DOES, THAT HE IS NOT FIT FOR
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND WE
ARE HOPEFUL THAT AFTER THE
EVALUATION HE WILL BE --

>> Emily: THAT'S A TOUGH
PLACE, TOO.
FOR ALL IN TENTS AND ALL, IT IS
PRISON.
THERE ARE MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE THERE THAT
DO CARE FOR, TREAT THE INMATES.
EM THEM IS A WIDE PORTION OF
CASUAL VIEWERS OF THIS TRIAL
THAT SYMPATHIZED WITH THE NOTION
THAT THIS KID, HOW HE SHOULDN'T
HAVE BEEN TRIED IN THIS WAY,
COMMITTED A MURDER, YOU
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE
DIFFERENTLY?

>> WELL, UNDER THE PRESENT LAW
IN MASSACHUSETTS, UNFORTUNATELY
NOTHING CAN BE DONE BECAUSE THE
LAW REQUIRES THAT ANYBODY
BETWEEN 14 AND 16, ANY JUVENILE
BETWEEN 14 AND 16 WHO IS CHARGED
WITH MURDER MUST BE TRIED AS AN
ADULT AND MUST BE SENTENCED AS
AN ADULT.
MASSACHUSETTS IS ONE OF ONLY TWO
STATES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY
WHERE THERE'S NO DISCRETION ON
THE PART OF A JUDGE TO MITIGATE
THE SENTENCE.

>> Emily: A LOT OF STATES
HAVE THIS RULE.
WE'RE ONE OF ONLY FEW STATES
WHERE A JUDGE CAN'T --

>> CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUSETTS
ARE THE ONLY TWO WHERE THERE IS
NO DISCRETION FROM THE TIME OF
THE CHARGE UNTIL THE SENTENCE
WITH RESPECT TO JUVENILES WHO
ARE CHARGED WITH MURDER.
AS I POINTED OUT IN COURT THE
OTHER DAY, THE UNITED NATIONS
CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF
CHILDREN PROHIBIT A SENTENCING
OF CHILDREN TO LIFE WITHOUT
PAROLE AND UNITED STATES AND
SOMALIA ARE THE ONLY TWO
COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WHO
HAVEN'T RATIFIED THE TREATY.

>> Emily: WHAT IN YOUR MIND
SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO THE KID?

>> THE CASE IS A TRAGEDY FROM
THE VERY BEGINNING.
ONE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SAY
SOMETHING COULD HAVE OR SHOULD
HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE THEN.
BUT WHEN YOU REALLY LOOK AT IT,
THE PARENTS WERE AS CARING
PARENTS WHO I'VE EVER MET.
THEY WORKED WITH THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, THEY WORK WITH SPECIAL
EDUCATION PEOPLE TRY TO PLACE
HIM IN THE BEST POSSIBLE PLACE
FOR HIM AND WERE AWARE OF THE
PROBLEMS, BUT NEVER HAD THE
PROBLEMS RISEN TO WHAT PEOPLE
THOUGHT WERE A THREAT OF HARM.
SO, THE LAST TIME WHEN HE WAS --
WENT TO LINCOLN SUDDEN BURY, THE
PARENTS HAD LOBBIED VERY HARD TO
HAVE HIM PLACED IN A SMALLER
MORE REGIMENTED SCHOOL WHERE HE
COULD BE MORE CLOSELY MONITORED.
NOT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE WAS
AFRAID OF VIOLENCE BUT BECAUSE
THEY THOUGHT --

>> Emily: HE NEEDED THE
ATTENTION.

>> HE COULD DO BETTER
ACADEMICALLY IS.

>> Emily: WHAT IS HE LIKE TO
INTERACT WITH NOW?
DOES HE HAVE COMPREHENSION OF
THE SERIOUSNESS OF WHAT JUST
HAPPENED TO HIM?

>> HE DOES.
HE'S COGNITIVE.
HE'S VERY SMART.
HIS ASBERGER'S MAKES IT
DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO INTERACT
WITH HIM.
PEOPLE THINK OF HIM AND PROBABLY
ALWAYS WILL THINK OF HIM AS ODD,
AS WEIRD, HE DOESN'T PICK UP ON
CUES, HE CAN'T SIT DOWN AND
REALLY HAVE A NORMAL
CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE.
AND OF COURSE THAT WOULD MAKE IT
VERY DIFFICULT AND WILL MAKE IT
VERY DIFFICULT IN THE PRISON.
HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT OTHER
INMATES ARE SAYING TO HIM, AS A
RESULT HE MAKES INAPPROPRIATE
REMARKS WHICH COULD GET HIM
HURT.

>> Emily: YOU ARE GOING FOR
AN APPEAL.
ON WHAT BASIS AND SHORT OF
HAVING THIS LAW CHANGED, COULD
IT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY?

>> I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
SUPPORT FOR CHANGE IN THE LAW
AND ALSO FOR CHANGE IN THE
SENTENCE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
CASES IN THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT RIGHT NOW WHICH
ARE CONSIDERING THE SENTENCE,
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCE FOR A
JUVENILE, WHETHER THOSE
DECISIONS WILL HELP OR NOT
REMAINS TO BE SEEN.
BUT THIS CASE IN THE VERY
BEGINNING SHOWS HOW BADLY WE
TREAT JUVENILES.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES
THAT ARISE OUT OF THAT.
NOT ONLY IN THE SENTENCE BUT
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING JOHN,
ALL OF HIS CONTEXT WITH HIS
PARENTS, WITH HIS FRIENDS, WITH
HIS RELATIVES WERE RECORDED.
HE COULD NOT HAVE A PRIVATE
CONVERSATION WITH HIS PARENTS
FROM THE MOMENT HE WENT IN TO
THE DYF FACILITY ON JANUARY
19th, 2000.
EVERY WORD HE SPOKE IN A VISIT,
IN A PHONE CALL WAS RECORDED --

>> Emily: HE KNEW THAT,
THOUGH.

>> HE KNEW IT, SURE.
BUT HE HAD NO CHOICE.
WHEN YOU TALK --

>> Emily: IS THAT BECAUSE HE
WAS A JUVENILE OR --

>> NO, BECAUSE THEY DO THAT.BUT IT HAD SO MUCH GREATER
IMPACT WHEN DEALING WITH A
JUVENILE WHO HAD NEVER BEEN AWAY
FROM HIS PARENTS BEFORE.
SO SURE, HE KNEW IT WAS BEING
RECORDED BUT HE STILL HAD TO
TALK TO HIS PARENTS.
THE RESULT OF THAT IS THE
PROSECUTION RECORDED EVERY WORD
HE SPOKE AND USED IT AGAINST HIM
AT EVERY STEP ALONG THE WAY AT
THE TRIAL THEY WERE PLAYING
RECORDINGS TO SHOW THAT HE
WASN'T SERIOUS ABOUT WHAT HE
HADDON.
AND OF COURSE GIVEN THE FACT
THAT SO MUCH OF WHAT HE SAID WAS
A REFLECTION OF HIS ASBERGER'S
SYNDROME, THE DISORDER, HE
WASN'T REALLY RESPONDING THE WAY
ONE WOULD EXPECT THE NORMAL
PERSON TO RESPOND, NEVERTHELESS
PEOPLE, THE JURORS, THEY HEARD
IT, THEY HEAR IT THINKING IT WAS
WHAT A NORMAL PERSON WOULD SAY.

>> Emily: DO YOU THINK SOME
OF THE JURORS HELD OUT, THEY
WEREN'T CONVINCED?

>> I REALLY DON'T KNOW.
I CAN'T SAY THAT I THINK THAT
THERE WAS REALLY ANY
DISAGREEMENT BECAUSE, NUMBER
ONE, THE VERDICT WAS RELATIVELY
FAST AND WHEN THE JURORS CAME
OUT THERE WAS NOT A TRACE OF
EMOTION ON ONE OF THEM.
NOT A TRACE OF EMOTION, WHICH
STRUCK ME BECAUSE I'VE SEEN A
LOT OF JURORS, EVEN MURDER CASES
COME BACK AND THERE'S EMOTION
JUST BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THE
AFFECT OF THEIR VERDICT IS GOING
TO BE.
THIS JURY DID NOT HAVE, AT LEE
AS FAR AS I COULD TELL A TRACE
OF REMOTION.

>> Emily: TOUGH, TOUGH CASE,
THANKS FOR COMING.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Emily: THAT IS IT FOR
""GREATER BOSTON" REMINDER TUNE
IN TO THE NEW 89.7WGHB FOR MY
RADIO SHOW.
COMING UP NEXT, IT'S A BRAND NEW
EDITION OF HIGH SCHOOL QUIZ
SHOW.
TOMORROW NIGHT, SHOULD INMATES
BE CHARGED $5 A DAY TO BE IN
PRISON.
ROSANA SABERI THE AMERICAN
JOURNALIST ARRESTED IN IRAN,
THAT'S ALL TOMORROW AT 7:00.
I'M EMILY ROONEY.