What happened
A New Hampshire judge is hearing whether Robert Tulloch should get a new sentence. He was 17 when he helped kill two Dartmouth professors in 2001.
Tulloch was given life without parole at the time. Later Supreme Court rulings said that kind of mandatory sentence for teens was unconstitutional.
Who wins here
Tulloch’s lawyers want a chance at parole after 30 to 40 years. That would give him a path out of prison, if a board later agrees.
The state still has a strong hand. Prosecutors can push for a long term, and victims’ families can press for the harshest lawful sentence.
How the play works
This fight runs through sentencing rules, not a new trial. The court is not redoing guilt. It is deciding how long a teen crime should still count in prison time.
The key lever is the Supreme Court’s rule on juvenile life terms. New Hampshire lawmakers have kept those sentences on the books, but a state judge already said the state constitution bars them.
Why it matters
This is bigger than one inmate. Hundreds of people sentenced as teens have asked for new terms after the high court changed the rules.
For regular people, the cost is trust in the system. A sentence that looks final can change years later, but only for those who can reach a judge.
What to watch next
Watch what sentence prosecutors seek and how the judge weighs Tulloch’s prison record. His lawyers point to years without major trouble and claimed remorse.
Also watch whether New Hampshire keeps relying on courts to fix this. If lawmakers do nothing, resentencing will stay a case-by-case process.