High court may redefine case

On Monday, Eduardo Lopez will rise from bed and resume the rigid, confining routine he must follow until he dies.

Even though that routine won’t allow him to visit Washington, two U.S. Supreme Court cases to be argued that day have a chance of redefining his life.

The high court will hear two defense lawyers argue that juveniles who are serving life sentences without parole should not be subjected to such punishment. Prosecutors, on the other hand, will argue that juveniles who commit these crimes show no chance of rehabilitation and thus should be treated as adults.

Lopez is serving a life sentence without possibility of parole for murdering a man on a Nashua street in 1991. He was 17 years old when he shot and killed 31-year-old restaurateur Robert Goyette.

Lopez and his lawyers fought prosecutors’ attempt to have him certified to stand trial as an adult. The state Supreme Court ruled two years later that Lopez could have been considered an adult when he shot Goyette. So at 19, after being found guilty at trial, Lopez received the stiffest sentence short of execution.

With oral arguments scheduled Monday on the two U.S. Supreme Court cases, advocates and opponents of juvenile life without parole, or JLWOP, are citing Lopez as one of many people who are justly or unfairly not allowed the chance to ever be freed from prison.

The mandatory sentencing law in New Hampshire, set by the state legislature, requires a judge to sentence a juvenile to life without parole for first-degree murder. Lopez and two others convicted in New Hampshire are serving those sentences, according to Human Rights Watch.

Legal experts doubt the high court will ultimately issue a ruling broad enough that it will affect Lopez. But they nonetheless see the two cases possibly redefining a type of sentencing that, of all the world’s industrialized nations, exists only in the United States.

Peter Cordella, chairman of the criminal justice department at St. Anselm College, said the Supreme Court’s makeup – four conservative justices with at least one moderate swing vote – makes it unlikely that JLWOP murder cases will see new legal precedent set.

Even liberal lawmakers have been tough on harsh crimes and would not reconsider overturning sentencing laws for juveniles who murder, Cordella said.

“My guess would be they’ll rule fairly narrowly. If they do it at all, it will be for non-homicide cases, or they could make distinctions on some homicides: second degree or manslaughter,” Cordella said.

The two high court cases involve sentences in Florida. Unlike Lopez, these two juveniles were convicted of non-homicide crimes.

Human Rights Watch is one of many organizations lobbying for the repeal of JLWOP in all cases, even homicides. It contends that juveniles are in their formative years and no matter how harsh the crime, they should have the opportunity to be paroled.

“We’re not saying these aren’t serious crimes and that children don’t need punishment,” said Allison Parker, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s U.S. program. “But what’s important for human rights and society is to not throw away children and to give them an opportunity to earn their release from prison. And that’s what a parole hearing is about. It’s not a get-out-of-jail free card.”

After his 1993 sentence, Lopez served six years in New Hampshire State Prison before being transferred to a Massachusetts prison as part of an interstate compact, said Jeffrey Lyons, spokesman for the state Department of Corrections.

Lyons said he couldn’t release why Lopez was transferred or to which prison.

Steven Maynard, a Nashua attorney who represented Lopez, didn’t return a phone call seeking comment. Michael Ramsdell, a former Hillsborough County prosecutor who handled the Lopez case, also didn’t respond to a query.

In the weeks leading to oral arguments on the two Florida cases, the Heritage Foundation has presented, on its web site, profiles on juveniles facing life without parole. Lopez was featured Oct. 28.

The organization opposes a repeal of JLWOP and has helped Florida prepare for its case. If the Supreme Court writes a broad opinion, it could strike down cases like Lopez’s, said Charles Stimson, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“But I don’t think they will,” Stimson said. “They will probably follow precedent and say state legislatures have set reasonable rules for the worst criminals and can decide which penalties attend to those crimes.”

Support and opposition to JLWOP doesn’t fit any political persuasion, Stimson said.

“I thought these arguments might break down on ideological grounds, but they don’t,” he said. “More Democrats than Republicans voted to have these sentences on the book.”

Laws such as JLWOP “may not affect many people,” Cordella said. “But they define the upper limits of what we’re willing to do to punish crime.”

Albert McKeon can be reached at 594-5832 or amckeon@nashuatelegraph.com.