INJUSTICE SYSTEM
More than 3,300 innocent Americans have been imprisoned unjustly then exonerated since 1989. Some spent decades behind bars. Lawyers’ work in one such case led to the California Innocence Project being founded in 1999 to help support and free people who h
“What do you mean, what happened? I can’t tell you what happened because I was not there.”
This was the answer my client gave about the events leading up to the victim’s death that landed him in the California prison system at the age of 20. I remember meeting his answer with silence for what felt like an eternity and running the numbers in my head of whether his ignorance of the facts in his case made sense or if he was trying to manipulate me.
At that time in 2019, I was just beginning my legal career with the California Innocence Project. I had conducted only a few other interviews on behalf of the organization prior to meeting this client, but I felt confident in my ability to build rapport and extract the pertinent information needed to move a case forward in our office.
I had spent about an hour talking to my client about his childhood trauma, prior convictions and gang involvement. As the conversation progressed, I was confident he was going to reveal his involvement in the murder and offer some type of justification like self-defense or the typical “I wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger” explanation. Instead, it was as if my client was trying to piece together the story based on information from police reports and trial transcripts. He seemed puzzled as to how he got convicted for this crime.
Something about the tone in his voice seemed sincere. However, it wasn’t until my client indicated he was eligible for a parole suitability hearing and intended to maintain his innocence even if that meant he had to stay in prison as a result that I started to believe he may not have committed this murder. My client had a relatively clean disciplinary record while incarcerated and had a good chance of being granted parole if he could demonstrate proper insight as to his commitment offense.
In my experience, insight is the biggest factor discussed at a parole hearing, where the commissioners explore whether a parole candidate has satisfactory expression of knowledge about the motives and causes of their commitment offense. As an innocent parole candidate, you can imagine how difficult it is to answer questions about a crime you did not commit.
I continued to investigate his case but had not come up with conclusive proof of innocence. Around the same time, my client went forward with his initial parole suitability hearing where he indeed maintained his innocence. The parole board found his claim to be plausible, but still denied parole for the minimum of three years.
In California, there is a statutory presumption in favor of parole unless there is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The parole board must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the crime, including the nature and gravity of the offense, the candidate’s history of violence, and the candidate’s behavior while incarcerated. One of the heavily weighed factors in determining whether to grant parole is whether the parole candidate has expressed remorse for the crime. However, the California Penal Code contradicts the statute in stating the board may not condition a grant of parole on the candidate’s admission of guilt.
As such, parole presents a unique dilemma for the innocent because they cannot accept responsibility and apologize for something they have not done. Thus, innocent parole candidates have two options: argue a plausible claim of factual innocence or admit responsibility but risk having this false statement used against them or prevent them from being able to reverse their conviction in the future.
In arguing a plausible claim of innocence, a parole attorney essentially conducts a mini trial at the parole hearing. The official version of the crime will be read into the record and often comes from the probation officer’s report, which rarely includes favorable evidence. Therefore, a parole attorney will need to acquire additional evidence that supports the client’s claim of innocence.
Even with plausible claims of innocence, parole candidates are not guaranteed parole. They may still need to take responsibility for their lifestyle prior to being incarcerated, take responsibility for any prison rule violations and show they have been “rehabilitated” to prove they do not pose a current danger to society.
In theory, not requiring the admission of guilt to the commitment offense in a parole hearing is great for innocent parole candidates. However, in practice, arguing a plausible claim of innocence often plays out as a roadblock to freedom.
Despite the extremely difficult standard, a few California Innocence Project clients have beaten the odds and been released on parole while maintaining their innocence. Even though they were not exonerated, they are free of the confines of prison and can work toward reintegrating back into society.
In the chance I am not able to find the evidence of innocence necessary to reverse my client’s conviction, I hope for more favorable case law to emerge to help him and many like him navigate the contradictions in the parole suitability process. Otherwise, innocent individuals remain in this burdensome dilemma of accepting responsibility for something they have not done in efforts to simply regain their freedom.
How can the innocent accept responsibility for something they have not done?
Salinas is a staff attorney at the California Innocence Project and lives in Downtown San Diego.