John Odgren was 16 when he killed a schoolmate in a bathroom at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School in 2007. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. On Tuesday, November 10, 2026, he was scheduled to ask the Massachusetts Parole Board to release him, Boston 25 News reported.
He can ask because of a 2013 Supreme Judicial Court decision that ended life without parole for anyone who was under 18 at the time of the crime. Here is what the courts decided in his case, why he is eligible, what the Parole Board must find before releasing him, and what rights he has if it says no.
The crime and the conviction
The facts come from the SJC’s 2019 decision affirming his conviction, Commonwealth v. Odgren, 483 Mass. 41 (2019), which we verified and read on CourtListener.
- The killing. “On January 19, 2007, the defendant, then sixteen years old and attending Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School, stabbed to death a schoolmate in a school bathroom using a kitchen knife that he had brought with him that morning,” the SJC wrote. Boston 25 identified the victim as James Alenson, 15, of Sudbury.
- The defense. Odgren did not dispute that he did it. His defense argued he lacked criminal responsibility. The SJC noted that at trial his Asperger’s disorder was presented to the jury. Boston 25 reported he was a special education student with Asperger syndrome.
- The verdict. “The jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty,” the SJC wrote.
- The appeal. Odgren argued the judge erred in instructing the jury and in admitting recorded conversations from his pretrial detention. The SJC rejected those arguments and also declined to use its special power under G.L. c. 278, § 33E to order a new trial or reduce the verdict. “Judgment affirmed,” the court concluded.
In that appeal, Odgren also argued that the jury instructions on malice wrongly ascribed to him “an adult’s ability to reason.” The SJC disagreed, writing that its recognition that adolescents are constitutionally different from adults “has been precisely limited to our consideration of juvenile sentencing, not whether a juvenile defendant is capable of committing murder.”
Why a man sentenced to life without parole can seek parole
The answer is Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 466 Mass. 655 (2013), verified and read on CourtListener.
- The old law. G.L. c. 265, § 2 made life without parole mandatory for first-degree murder. It said no person “shall be eligible for parole” while serving a life sentence for first-degree murder, as the SJC quoted it.
- The holding. The SJC concluded that mandatory life without parole for people “under the age of eighteen when they committed the crime of murder in the first degree” violates the ban on “cruel or unusual punishments” in article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. It went further and held that even a discretionary life-without-parole sentence for a juvenile violates article 26 “because it is an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment when viewed in the context of the unique characteristics of juvenile offenders.”
- Retroactive. The court held the rule applies to cases already final, so it covered people like Odgren who were sentenced before 2013.
- The remedy. Juvenile offenders serving those sentences must get “a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,” through consideration for parole.
Boston 25 also mentioned the SJC’s January 2024 ruling extending the ban on life without parole to “emerging adults” aged 18 to 20. Odgren was 16, so the earlier 2013 rule is the one that applies to him.
What the Parole Board must decide
Eligibility is not release. The standard is in G.L. c. 127, § 130, which we read at malegislature.gov.
- Not a reward. “No prisoner shall be granted a parole permit merely as a reward for good conduct.”
- The test. Parole may be granted “only if the board is of the opinion, after consideration of a risk and needs assessment, that there is a reasonable probability that, if the prisoner is released with appropriate conditions and community supervision, the prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the law and that release is not incompatible with the welfare of society.”
- What counts. The board “shall consider whether, during the period of incarceration, the prisoner has participated in available work opportunities and education or treatment programs and demonstrated good behavior.”
- A public record. The board’s decision must include “a summary statement of the case indicating the reasons for the decision” and the vote count, and it “shall become a public record,” with limited exceptions.
Under G.L. c. 127, § 133A, lifer parole hearings are public hearings before the full board, and no hearing may proceed unless a majority of the board is present.
The extra rights juvenile lifers get
Two years after the first decision, the SJC returned to the same case in Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 471 Mass. 12 (2015), also verified. Because parole is the only thing that keeps a juvenile’s life sentence from being unconstitutional, the court held the process must be meaningful. It addressed:
- Counsel. A juvenile homicide offender serving a mandatory life sentence “must have access to counsel in connection with an initial application for parole,” including appointed counsel if indigent.
- Experts. Expert help “may not be necessary for every juvenile homicide offender,” the court said, but in some cases it can make the difference in whether the juvenile has a meaningful chance of release, and funds may be authorized.
- Judicial review. A juvenile offender denied parole may seek review of the board’s decision in court.
What happens next
Boston 25 described the story as developing and had not reported the outcome of the hearing as of Tuesday morning. Whatever the board decides will come in a written decision under § 130.
We will update this story when the hearing is reported and when the board’s decision is released.
Frequently asked questions
Who is John Odgren?
He was convicted of first-degree murder for stabbing James Alenson, 15, at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School on January 19, 2007, when Odgren was 16. The SJC affirmed his conviction in 2019.
Why is John Odgren eligible for parole?
In Diatchenko (2013), the SJC held that life without parole is unconstitutional for people who were under 18 at the time of the murder, and that they must have a meaningful opportunity for release through parole.
Will John Odgren be released?
That is up to the Parole Board. It may grant parole only if it finds a reasonable probability he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law and that release is not incompatible with the welfare of society.
When will the Parole Board decide?
The board’s decision, with its reasons and vote count, becomes a public record under § 130. No decision had been reported as of Tuesday morning.
Can a denied juvenile lifer appeal?
Yes. Under the SJC’s 2015 Diatchenko decision, a juvenile homicide offender denied parole can seek judicial review.
Sources: Boston 25 News, November 10, 2026. Commonwealth v. Odgren, 483 Mass. 41 (2019); Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 466 Mass. 655 (2013) and 471 Mass. 12 (2015), verified and read on CourtListener. G.L. c. 127, §§ 130 and 133A, read at malegislature.gov. General information, not legal advice.