January 18, 2023 by ParoleAttorney.com
The nonpartisan (consisting of Republicans and Democrats) Legislative Analyst’s Office issued a report on January 5, 2023 that may have a significant impact going forward requiring the Parole Board to further justify a parole denial. According to the report the California board of parole has “overly broad discretion” that “could result in biased decisions” the analyst wrote:
“We recommend that the Legislature consider changing statute to reduce this discretion somewhat, such as by increasing the standard commissioners must meet to deny parole”
This is very good news for inmates in the State of California as this could result in more prisoners being released on parole. Currently, there are roughly 96,000 inmates in the California prison system which number does not include county jails or federal prisons. Per the report in 2021, there were 4,188 parole hearings, one-third were granted parole while two-thirds were denied parole. In the 1990s less than 5% of parole applications were granted, parole reform has come a long way but it has a long way to go. Nearly three-quarters of candidates for parole in California are Black or Hispanic; according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office, two studies suggest that there are racial disparities in parole outcomes.
In 2020 a lawsuit was filed in Michael Brodheim vs. CDCR wherein the department of corrections after a hard fight in opposition was ordered to release records regarding the race and ethnicity of parole candidates. In June 2020 the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also filed a lawsuit against CDCR on behalf of Project Recon alleging that the CDCR violated the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the First Amendment by refusing to release the race of the inmate. Soon thereafter, the EFFs case was consolidated with Michael Brodheim’s case against the CDCR. EFF moved for a Writ of Mandate ordering CDCR to disclose the race data. In its opposition, CDCR claimed it was protecting the privacy of incarcerated people, and that race data constituted “criminal offender record information” and was therefore exempt from disclosure. In its Reply, to CDCRs specious argument EFF asserted that the public interest in disclosure is high – especially since racial disparities in the criminal justice system are a national topic of conversation – and thus was not outweighed by the public interest in nondisclosure. EFF also argued that race data could not constitute “criminal offender record information” since race has nothing to do with someone’s criminal record, but rather is demographic information.
The court agreed and ruled in favor of Michael Brodheim and EFF. The court reasoned that the public has a strong public interest in the disclosure of race and ethnicity data of parole candidates holding that:
“This case unquestionably involves a weighty public interest in disclosure, i.e., to shed light on whether the parole process is infected by racial or ethnic bias. The importance of that public interest is vividly highlighted by the current national focus on the role of race in the criminal justice system and in American society generally … Disclosure insures that government activity is open to the sharp eye of public scrutiny.”
The court went on to order CDCR to produce the requested records. The CDCR declined to appeal the court’s decision and produced the records as ordered by the court.
Michael Brodheim vs. CDCR is a huge win for transparency, open government, and racial justice. CDCR has a significant history of racial bias which the U.S. Supreme Court (Johnson v. California (2005) 543 U.S. 499) and California appellate courts (In re Morales (2013) 212 Cal. App.4th 1410, 152 Cal Rptr 3d 123) have recognized which makes it all the more important for information about potential racial disparities in parole determinations to be open for the public to analyze and debate.
Last but not least the nonpartisan report also recommends that the Legislature require a standard of evidence, such as a finding by “a preponderance of evidence” or by “clear and convincing evidence” that the parole candidate currently poses a risk to society as opposed to the board’s discretion being applied and that the parole board be required to release to the public data on the race and sex of the parole candidate and the outcomes in each case.
The report furthermore determined that most prisoners are represented by state-appointed lawyers who are paid very little compensation to represent inmates. As recent as January 2020 state appointed attorneys were making as little as $400 per case. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysis Office, studies have shown that parole candidates who hire their own attorneys are more likely than not to be granted parole.
ParoleAttorney.com concurs with the findings of the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.
For Effective Legal Representation contact our office today at 1-833-2PAROLE or dial 1-833-272-7653.
Choosing an Experienced Parole Attorney to represent you before the Board of Parole is perhaps the most important decision you will make in your life; it can make the difference between whether or not you are granted parole or denied parole.
