Massachusetts AG Faces Decision in Felony Murder Habeas Corpus Challenge

BOSTON (Azat TV) – U.S. District Court Judge Denise J. Casper is currently reviewing a critical habeas corpus petition from Danny Rogers, a Massachusetts man serving a life sentence without parole for a 2007 felony murder conviction. The petition, filed by Rogers and his attorney David J. Nathanson, challenges the proportionality of his sentence and the legal basis of his conviction, which originated from an attempt to shoplift toothpaste. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, led by Andrea J. Campbell, is expected to file its opposition to the petition by February 9, 2026, marking a pivotal moment in a case that has drawn significant attention from the criminal defense community.

Rogers’ case has become a focal point for discussions surrounding the state’s felony-murder rule, particularly after the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) prospectively narrowed its scope in 2017 with the landmark decision in Commonwealth v. Brown. That ruling, which aimed to prevent ‘unjust results’ from the longstanding felony-murder doctrine, did not apply retroactively, leaving individuals like Rogers convicted under the previous, broader interpretation of the law.

Danny Rogers’ Path to a Federal Habeas Corpus Petition

The incident leading to Rogers’ conviction occurred in 2007. Then homeless, Rogers attempted to shoplift several tubes of toothpaste from a CVS store. The situation escalated when three CVS employees chased him, leading to an altercation during which Rogers, allegedly subjected to a racial epithet, stabbed two employees, fatally wounding one. He was subsequently convicted of first-degree murder, carrying a mandatory sentence of life without parole.

In 2022, Superior Court Judge John A. Agostini, reviewing Rogers’ motion for a new trial, concluded that Rogers’ case was ‘one of those rare cases that militates against a first-degree conviction.’ Citing the principles articulated in the post-Brown legal landscape, Judge Agostini utilized his authority under Rule 25(b) to reduce Rogers’ conviction to murder in the second degree, which would have made him eligible for parole after 15 to 25 years. However, the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office appealed this decision.

In 2024, the SJC reinstated Rogers’ first-degree murder conviction, finding that Judge Agostini had relied on improper grounds, including the *Brown* decision, to reduce the verdict. The SJC also faulted Agostini for considering evidence of Rogers’ spontaneous, unpremeditated actions—factors not directly germane to felony murder at the time of the original conviction.

Arguments for Proportionality and Due Process

Rogers’ current habeas corpus petition argues that his sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, contending it is disproportionate to his actions. His attorney, David J. Nathanson, asserts that the prosecution effectively secured a life sentence ‘on a technicality,’ transforming a minor shoplifting attempt into an armed robbery and then into a first-degree murder conviction, without ever proving an intent to murder.

Nathanson highlights the SJC’s initial resistance to the idea that armed robbery requires multiple ‘intents’ beyond the intent to steal, and that possessing a concealed pocketknife during shoplifting could be interpreted as a completed armed robbery. He argues this interpretation is ‘absurd and untethered to precedent,’ potentially turning ‘every shoplifting in Massachusetts into a completed armed robbery’ and violating Rogers’ due process rights under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in *Bouie v. City of Columbia*.

The petition also renews arguments of ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that Rogers’ trial attorney failed to have an expert evaluate his intent to commit the underlying felony. During a 2021 evidentiary hearing, neuropsychologist William Rinn testified that Rogers likely experienced a ‘panic episode’ and a dissociative ‘fight or flight’ state during the altercation, influenced by chronic homelessness and past racial prejudice. While Judge Agostini recognized Rinn as a qualified expert, he found issues with the methodology and its application to the case, a finding subsequently upheld by the SJC.

Legal Community and Attorney General’s Role

The case has garnered significant support from the criminal defense community. Caitlin Glass, a lecturer at Boston University School of Law, expressed that the outcome ‘doesn’t pass the common-sense test’ for non-lawyers, equating a first-degree murder conviction for this incident with intentional, premeditated murder. Patrick Levin of the Committee for Public Counsel Services’ appeals unit called the SJC’s decision to reinstate the conviction ‘one of the more egregious malfunctions of the post-conviction review process.’

Attorney General Andrea J. Campbell’s office now faces a critical decision regarding its response to the habeas petition. Nathanson has publicly urged the AG’s office to ‘do the right thing,’ suggesting that the ‘just result is Danny being home with his family.’ While Campbell has established a Justice Review Unit, early indications suggest Rogers’ case may not fall within its specific mandate, though experts like Katharine Naples-Mitchell of Harvard Law School’s Criminal Justice Institute hope the unit might still consider the ‘disproportionate punishment and these federal rights issues.’ The AG’s Office has declined to comment on the ongoing case.

The outcome of Rogers’ habeas petition could set a precedent for how federal courts address perceived injustices stemming from the prospective application of state-level criminal justice reforms, particularly when such reforms aim to correct doctrines that have yielded disproportionate sentences.