JEFFERSON CITY • A federal judge on Friday said that recent Missouri parole hearings violated the constitutional rights of inmates serving life without parole for offenses they committed when they were juveniles.
State officials have 60 days to develop a plan for providing the inmates “a meaningful and realistic opportunity” for parole, U.S. District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey ruled.
The lawsuit was filed by four inmates who are seeking to represent all inmates who were convicted and sentenced to life without parole for an offense that occurred when they were younger than 18.
Each of the four inmates was recently denied parole after a hearing, and Laughrey said nearly 85 percent of the class of affected inmates did not receive a parole date after a hearing. The majority were not granted another hearing for the maximum of five years, without an explanation “for the lengthy setback,” she wrote.
People are also reading…
In a news release about the ruling Sunday, the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center of St. Louis, which represents the inmates along with lawyers from Husch Blackwell, said more than 90 inmates are affected.
The parole board’s decision is communicated to inmates on a two-page “barebones, boilerplate form,” with only two available reasons for denying parole: the seriousness of the original offense or that the inmate’s “inability to... remain at liberty without again violating the law,” Laughrey wrote.
Even state officials admitted Missouri failed to provide adequate explanation for the decisions, the judge said, and fails to tell inmates what “steps they should to take to become better suited for parole.”
Laughrey wrote that while an adult’s “interest in parole is not constitutionally protected,” a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions “has held that those who were children at the time of the crimes for which they were convicted may be subject to certain additional protections.”
The lawsuit, and Laughrey’s decision, also cite a 2016 law, SB 590, that allows inmates convicted as juveniles to seek a parole review after serving 25 years.
That law says the parole board must consider 15 factors, what Laughrey calls a “meaningful and realistic opportunity to secure release upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.”
But a number of the state’s “policies, practices, and customs combine to deprive” inmates of that opportunity, she said, and failing to do so “violates, at a minimum, the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.”
Laughrey said state officials won’t let inmates view their parole files or a report that “largely guides the format and content of the SB 590 hearings.” An inmate can only have one attorney or delegate, who can’t take notes and can only discuss the inmate’s “transition to the community.” Victims may be accompanied by multiple supporters, get to speak first and can speak as long as they want. They can also exclude the inmate while they talk. Prosecutors can also speak as long as they wish and “are free to present argument and even unproven theories regarding the crimes for which the inmates were convicted,” Laughrey wrote.
Officials lack “any objective tools, matrices, or criteria to evaluate” the inmates, and admit “using wholly subjective standards” for deciding on parole for this group of inmates.
Laughrey ruled that the state needs to come up with “revised policies, procedures, and customs” that will “ensure that all Class members are provided a meaningful and realistic opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,” including those who already had unsuccessful hearings.