ST. LOUIS - A class-action lawsuit seeking major reforms of Missouri's parole system just got the go-ahead from a federal judge in St. Louis.

The case, Gasca vs. Precythe, alleges that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole violates people's due-process rights by not sufficiently educating them about their right to a hearing, and not screening them quickly or thoroughly to determine if they qualify for a court-appointed attorney.

Amy Breihan, director of the MacArthur Justice Center, which brought the case, said that about 6,000 people in Missouri are accused of violating parole each year and 90 percent are sent back to prison - many for things such as losing a job or missing a meeting with their parole officer.

"Thousands of people are being reincarcerated in Missouri, mostly for technical violations, not breaking the law," she said, "and they're never told about some of their very basic constitutional rights, and they're never afforded those rights."

The state has argued that people on parole are informed of their rights but that most simply waive them. The lawsuit seeks no monetary damages; rather, it asks that the Missouri Department of Corrections make major changes to its practices.

Breihan noted that the case originally concerned the fate of seven plaintiffs, but the judge's new decision consolidates them into a class-action suit that includes the 15,000 people currently on parole in Missouri.

"What it means is that the court recognized that the issues that we have highlighted in the case are systemic," she said. "Hopefully, if we're able to obtain a good outcome in the case, it will have a bigger impact for folks who are on parole supervision, beyond just the seven named plaintiffs in the case."

The MacArthur Center has asked for a summary judgment in its favor. If that isn't granted, the case will go to trial in the fall.

More information is online at macarthurjustice.org.


get more stories like this via email

About 7,000 Nebraskans with felony convictions who thought they'd be able to register to vote, now face uncertainty.

In question is the constitutionality of Legislative Bill 20, a new law scheduled to take effect last week.

It restores voting rights without a two year waiting period for people who've served their sentences. Gov. Jim Pillen allowed it to become law without his signature.

Jane Seu, legal and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, said it appears Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnen asked Attorney General Mike Hilgers about the law, and Hilgers has concluded it is unconstitutional.

"This is a validly passed and enacted law," said Seu. "The legislature passed it through its own process with major bipartisan support. So really, I think what all the Attorney General's doing - and the Secretary of State - is really just causing confusion and doubt for voters, questioning their right to vote."

In his opinion, Hilgers points out the Nebraska Constitution grants the power to restore voting rights to the Board of Pardons.

Seu said she thinks this opinion has the potential to harm many more Nebraskans than those helped by LB-20.

That's because it also calls a 2005 law into question, which established the two-year waiting period in lieu of a Board of Pardons decision.

Seu said the speed with which Evnen acted after receiving Hilgers' opinion is noteworthy.

"So, the Attorney General released his opinion, and the Secretary of State has decided to follow that - and has directed county election officials to not register people with felony convictions to vote," said Seu. "That happened the same day, so kind of showing some coordination to keep people with felony convictions from being able to vote."

With the passage of LB-20, Nebraska became one of the 40 states that restore voting rights to people with felony convictions. Seu said this issue is far from settled.

"We want every Nebraska voter to know that their vote matters," said Seu. "They deserve a say in our democracy, and we're going to do everything we can to uphold that right. So, we're exploring every possible option."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

It's being called a historic milestone - 200 people have been exonerated after being sentenced to death since 1973, what's known as the modern era of capital punishment.

The exonerees were wrongfully convicted, because of misconduct from government officials or other factors, and then set free after being behind bars - sometimes for decades.

Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said cases like this have been devastating not just for individual families, but for the nation.

"Communities really lose confidence in the integrity of the legal system," said Maher, "and its ability to respond appropriately and keep them safe."

Half of the public now believes the U.S. unfairly applies the death penalty, according to the latest polling. But a majority of Americans still favor death sentences for those convicted of murder.

Capital punishment is illegal in West Virginia, and the state's last execution was more than 60 years ago. But there have been efforts to reinstate it this year.

And a jury recommended federal death sentences for two Mountain State residents in 2007, which were later overturned.

Nationwide, Maher said far more than 200 people have likely been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, in part because of challenges with the legal appeal process.

"Once someone is convicted and sent to prison, that burden then shifts to them to prove that they're innocent," said Maher. "And that's very difficult to do without a good lawyer. And it's also very difficult to do because of the operation of the law."

The Death Penalty Information Center says two-thirds of those exonerated have been people of color.

President Joe Biden campaigned on abolishing the federal death penalty, but his administration has taken few steps to do so.




get more stories like this via email

The Michigan Supreme Court is set to reexamine the life without parole sentences of three men who have spent two decades in prison, convicted of murder at ages 18, 19 and 20.

The justices will consider several factors, including the age and immaturity of the individuals, their family and home environment and the circumstances of the crimes. In 2022, the Court ruled mandatory no-parole sentences for 18-year-olds convicted of murder violated the state constitution's prohibition on "cruel or unusual" punishment. It will now decide whether to extend the ruling to 19- and 20-year-olds.

Quinn Yeargain, associate professor of law at Michigan State University, supports the court's decision to review the cases.

"There's a good amount of literature out there suggesting that people who are in their late teens and even going into their early twenties, their brains are not fully developed," Yeargain pointed out. "That's sort of the basis of this constitutional challenge."

Critics of reducing life sentences for young offenders argued it is contradictory to claim individuals old enough to vote, marry and obtain abortions without parental consent should not be held fully accountable for their serious crimes.

The high court will also look at how the offenders dealt with police and prosecutors and whether they can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. Yeargain emphasized it is not about giving someone a "get out of jail free card." He said Michigan's parole board, which operates within the Department of Corrections, is known for being overly cautious in ensuring individuals seeking parole have genuinely undergone rehabilitation.

"We're talking about people who are still going to be serving very long prison terms, and it's just a statement that maybe they'll be eligible for parole at a certain point," Yeargain emphasized. "If they're able to make a showing that they have changed, they have demonstrated remorse -- then they may be entitled to release at that point."

In Michigan, no-parole life sentences for those 18 or younger are no longer automatic. Judges review their background and potential for rehabilitation, while prosecutors must justify the sentence. The court plans to review the cases in the fall.


get more stories like this via email