When Prentis Cordell Jackson learned in 2006 that he would never again know freedom, the convicted murderer, then 17, felt a lot of different things. Numb. Angry. Sad.
"I was old enough to go spend the rest of my life in prison, but I wasn't old enough to go buy a pack of cigarettes," he said during an interview last spring at Oak Park Heights Correctional Facility.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Jackson and more than 2,100 other inmates who committed murders as teenagers must be considered for parole or given a new sentence, no matter how long ago the crime occurred. The ruling greatly expands the court's 2012 landmark Miller vs. Alabama decision involving a 14-year-old boy that said sentences of mandatory life without parole for juveniles was unconstitutional and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. With Monday's action, the decision extends to juveniles sentenced before the 2012 ruling.
Minnesota has eight juvenile killers in prison under its "heinous crimes" statute. However, some states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan have a combined 900 cases that will require judicial review.
"The ruling has a significant impact across the country," said Perry Moriearty, a University of Minnesota law professor and co-director of the Child Advocacy and Juvenile Justice Clinic. Moriearty and William Mitchell law Prof. Bradford Colbert are representing convicts in two cases. "For states sitting on their hands on these cases, they now have to do something." Moriearty said.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case of Henry Montgomery, who has been in prison more than 50 years since he killed a sheriff's deputy as a 17-year-old in Baton Rouge, La., in 1963. Until Monday's ruling, it was unclear whether that 2012 decision was retroactive for juveniles already serving their life sentences.
In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that states do not have to go so far as to resentence killers serving life terms. Instead, the states can offer parole hearings with no guarantee of release.
Minnesota doesn't have a parole board system and offers the possibility of parole only after two-thirds of a sentence has been served. The decision does not expressly forbid judges from sentencing teenagers to a lifetime in prison. But the Supreme Court has previously said such sentences should be rare, and only for the most heinous crimes.