James Rodwell has been in prison since he was arrested in 1981 for a Somerville murder he has always said he did not commit. On Tuesday, October 6, 2026, at 70, he finally got a hearing on a request for executive clemency before the state Parole Board, sitting as the Advisory Board of Pardons. And he got it without saying the words that clemency petitioners in Massachusetts have long been expected to say: I did it, and I am sorry.
“I had nothing to do with this case,” Rodwell told the seven-member board, according to the Boston Herald. “It’s a sham, it really is.”
That he could say so and still be heard is the result of guidelines Gov. Maura Healey issued in October 2023. Here is what happened at the hearing, how clemency actually works in Massachusetts, and what would have to happen next for Rodwell to go free.
The case
Louis Rose Jr., 21, was shot and killed in a car in Somerville on December 3, 1978. In 1981 a jury convicted Rodwell of first-degree murder, armed robbery and unlawfully carrying a firearm. A first-degree murder conviction in Massachusetts carries a mandatory life sentence without parole for an adult, which is why Rodwell has never been eligible for a parole hearing.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions in Commonwealth v. Rodwell, 394 Mass. 694 (1985). Its opinion describes the two witnesses at the center of the case:
- Francis X. Holmes Jr., who, after being arrested for another crime in the spring of 1981, told police he had been Rodwell’s accomplice in 1978. He testified as an immunized witness.
- David Nagle, a fellow prisoner at the Middlesex County house of correction in Billerica, who testified that Rodwell admitted the murder to him while awaiting trial. On cross-examination Nagle acknowledged four armed robbery charges pending in Suffolk County and two armed robbery charges and a kidnapping charge pending in Middlesex County, and said he had been cooperating with police.
Nearly all of Rodwell’s arguments on appeal were about Nagle’s testimony and limits on his lawyer’s cross-examination of Nagle. The SJC rejected them and, under its special review power for first-degree murder cases, G.L. c. 278, § 33E, found no reason to reduce the verdict.
Both Boston 25 News and the Herald reported that there was no physical evidence tying Rodwell to the killing. The Herald reported that a judge denied Rodwell’s seventh motion for a new trial.
What was said at Tuesday’s hearing
According to the Herald and Boston 25:
- The informant. Rodwell’s attorney, Veronica White, argued that Nagle was a paid Drug Enforcement Administration informant and that the jury never heard that he “worked for multiple agencies, including the DEA.” She argued the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office knew the extent of his work with federal agents and did not disclose it.
- New evidence, partly sealed. White said she was presenting new information, including a witness who has come forward under oath to say Rodwell was set up. Part of the hearing was held in executive session because some of that evidence has been sealed by a court, the Herald reported.
- A former board member. Michael Albano, a former Springfield mayor and former Parole Board member, submitted an affidavit questioning a key witness and spoke in support. “He’s innocent, and the facts are just not there to prove him guilty,” he told the board.
- The board’s questions. Board member Kaitlyn O’Leary noted that a judge had rejected the same informant arguments on the seventh new-trial motion. Rafael Ortiz asked why so many people would go to the trouble of targeting Rodwell. Dr. Charlene Bonner told him the board hears “many, many, many” claims of factual innocence, and added, “there hasn’t been a lot of evidence to contradict your claim.”
- The victim’s brother. Dean Rose was the only person to speak against clemency. “Knowing that his final moments were filled with absolute terror and pain is a nightmare my family relives over and over and over,” he said.
- The prosecutor. The district attorney’s office took no position, Boston 25 reported.
The board went into executive session afterward. No date has been announced for its recommendation.
The rule that changed: you no longer have to confess
Clemency has traditionally rewarded remorse, and remorse starts with admitting the crime. For a prisoner who insists he is innocent, that has been a trap: tell the truth as he sees it and look unrepentant, or admit to something he says he did not do.
Healey’s Executive Clemency Guidelines, issued October 31, 2023, address that directly. The governor says she “will give significant consideration to petitioners who have clearly demonstrated that they accept responsibility for their past actions,” but then:
“A criminal defendant’s exercise of due process is not inimical to executive clemency, and a petitioner’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for an offense may sometimes reflect the petitioner’s actual innocence rather than any shirking of responsibility for past actions. Petitioners who maintain their innocence, like other petitioners, shall be eligible for clemency as the circumstances warrant.”
The guidelines also say the governor will not give “negative consideration to petitioners who pursue an appeal or other legal challenge to their convictions.” Rodwell has filed seven new-trial motions.
The three factors the governor weighs
The guidelines say the governor will focus primarily on three things in every petition:
- Unfairness in the system. “Despite our best efforts as a society, innocent people may be convicted of a crime.” The governor will consider whether clemency “would address a miscarriage of justice,” and whether continued incarceration would be “gross unfairness” given the sentence, the petitioner’s role and later changes in the law. This is the factor Rodwell’s petition rests on.
- Accountability with compassion. The nature of the offense and its impact on the victim and on society are “major considerations.” So are mitigating circumstances, including age and maturity at the time of the crime.
- Character and conduct since the offense. Efforts at rehabilitation, institutional record and discipline, programs, and whether the person would pose a risk to public safety.
For commutations specifically, the guidelines say age over 50 or diminished health should be considered as a factor in favor. They also put the burden of proof on the petitioner: the board must be satisfied that a fact “is supported by the weight of the evidence.”
A wrinkle: the board is not allowed to retry the case
The statute that makes the Parole Board the Advisory Board of Pardons, G.L. c. 127, § 154, limits what it can look at. The board “shall not review the proceedings of the trial court, and shall not consider any questions regarding the correctness, regularity or legality of such proceedings,” and must confine itself “to matters which properly bear upon the propriety of the extension of clemency.”
That means the board cannot act like an appeals court and rule that Rodwell’s trial was unfair or that evidence should have been suppressed. The courts have already ruled on those questions. What it can do, under the governor’s guidelines, is weigh whether keeping him in prison would be a miscarriage of justice, including the possibility that he is innocent. That is why the hearing focused on who Nagle and Holmes were and what they stood to gain, rather than on trial rulings.
Pardon versus commutation
The guidelines describe two separate powers:
- A commutation “has the effect of releasing a petitioner from an ongoing sentence of incarceration.” It shortens or changes the sentence. It does not erase the conviction. Rodwell asked for a commutation, the Herald reported.
- A pardon “has the effect of treating the petitioner as if the offense had never been committed.” Under G.L. c. 127, § 152, once a pardon is approved the governor directs that all records of the offense be sealed, and the person may answer “no” when asked on a job application or elsewhere whether they were convicted of it.
The guidelines say people still serving a sentence, in prison, on parole or on probation, “generally should seek a commutation before seeking a pardon.”
What happens next, step by step
- The board’s recommendation. The board votes and sends a report and recommendation to the governor’s legal counsel. Under § 154 and the guidelines, after a hearing the report is due within six months of when the board received the petition, unless it needs more evidence from the petitioner. The recommendation is advisory only.
- The governor decides. She can grant, deny, send the petition back to the board, or ask for more information. If the board recommends denial and the governor does nothing for 90 days, the guidelines say the denial is presumed. If the board recommends clemency and the governor does nothing for one year, the petition is presumed denied.
- The Governor’s Council. The Massachusetts Constitution gives the pardoning power to the governor “by and with the advice of council.” For a prisoner serving a felony sentence, § 152 says no final action may be taken until the Governor’s Council holds a public hearing. The council then votes by roll call, and approval takes a majority of the members present, with a quorum.
So even a favorable vote by the board this fall would be the first of three yeses Rodwell needs.
Why clemency is his last route
The guidelines themselves say “the Governor will not give executive clemency lightly.” For a prisoner in Rodwell’s position, though, it is the only path left that does not run through a court. A first-degree murder sentence carries no parole, and the courts have now turned down seven motions for a new trial, according to the Herald.
Clemency is different from parole. Our explainer on how parole works for murder convictions covers the people who are eligible for parole hearings, including those convicted as juveniles. Clemency is the governor’s power, and the Parole Board only advises.
Frequently asked questions
Who is James Rodwell?
A 70-year-old man serving life without parole for the December 3, 1978 killing of Louis Rose Jr. in Somerville. He was convicted in 1981, the SJC affirmed in 1985, and he has maintained his innocence throughout. He had a clemency hearing before the Advisory Board of Pardons on October 6, 2026.
Do you have to admit guilt to get clemency in Massachusetts?
No. Gov. Healey’s October 2023 Executive Clemency Guidelines say that “Petitioners who maintain their innocence, like other petitioners, shall be eligible for clemency as the circumstances warrant,” and that unwillingness to accept responsibility “may sometimes reflect the petitioner’s actual innocence.”
Who decides clemency in Massachusetts?
The governor, with the advice and consent of the Governor’s Council. The Parole Board, acting as the Advisory Board of Pardons, holds hearings and makes a recommendation, but the recommendation is not binding.
What is the difference between a pardon and a commutation?
A commutation releases a person from an ongoing sentence or shortens it, but the conviction remains. A pardon treats the offense as if it had never been committed, and the records are sealed under G.L. c. 127, section 152.
When will the board decide on Rodwell?
No date has been announced. The board went into executive session after the hearing. Any recommendation then goes to the governor, and a commutation would also need a public hearing and a vote of the Governor’s Council.
Sources: Boston Herald (Colleen Cronin) and Boston 25 News, October 6-7, 2026. Commonwealth v. Rodwell, 394 Mass. 694 (1985), read on CourtListener. Executive Clemency Guidelines issued by Gov. Maura T. Healey, October 31, 2023, read in full. G.L. c. 127, sections 152 and 154, read at malegislature.gov. Statements made at the hearing are attributed as reported; we have not seen the sealed evidence or the new-trial rulings. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.