Opinion ID: 1918563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Proceedings on Remand to the Parole Board

Text: Immediately following this Court's May 1998 decision reversing the Parole Board's denial of parole and imposition of a ten-year FET, and remanding for a new parole determination consistent with this Court's opinion, Trantino renewed his request for transfer to a halfway house in anticipation of his new parole hearing. Department of Correction regulations require that, prior to transfer to a halfway house, inmates must undergo a risk/needs assessment at one of two residential substance-abuse treatment centers under contract with DOC, and be approved for transfer by the Institutional Classification Committee (I.C.C.). See N.J.A.C. 10A:20-4.4, 4.5 and 10A:9-31. After an evaluation by a DOC psychologist in July 1998 found Trantino suitable for halfway-house placement, the Riverfront State Prison I.C.C. recommended that Trantino be transferred to Talbot Hall in Kearny, one of the residential treatment centers that screened inmates prior to halfway-house assignment. The Assistant Commissioner of DOC approved the recommendation and Trantino was transferred to Talbot Hall [6] on August 18, 1998. The record reveals that immediately after Trantino's assignment to Talbot Hall numerous public officials protested the transfer, and a statement issued by the Office of the Governor expressed her surprise over the transfer and her request that the transfer be reviewed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's office requested that a new psychological evaluation be conducted by Dr. Michael Welner to determine whether Trantino's assignment to Talbot Hall was appropriate. Dr. Welner issued his report on November 9, 1998, finding among other things that Trantino's risk of recidivism was low but that his prior history of substance abuse required that he again participate in an Alcoholics-Anonymous-type twelve-step program prior to community release. Three days later, on November 12, 1998, the DOC's Community Classification Committee at Talbot Hall determined, on the basis of Dr. Welner's report and various psychological tests administered at Talbot Hall, that Trantino was unsuitable for halfway house placement in part because he presented an escape risk and had an unresolved substance abuse problem. Trantino was transferred that same day to South Woods, a medium security prison, with a recommendation that he be assigned to a substance abuse program. At South Woods, however, Trantino's application for enrollment in its substance abuse program was rejected because his score was substantially below the minimum requirement on an Addiction Severity Test for admission to the program, and he asserts that that rejection significantly undermined the reliability of the Talbot Hall Committee's determination. Trantino's cross-petition for certification challenges the legality of his transfer from Talbot Hall to South Woods. In an unreported opinion the Appellate Division previously has dismissed as moot the appeal asserting that that transfer was illegal.
In view of the magnitude of the record before us, which includes not only evidence and testimony presented at the Parole Board's latest remand hearing but also the entire appellate record underlying this Court's 1998 disposition, we will focus our attention on the evidence that relates specifically to the grounds relied on by the Parole Board in denying parole. The Board based its June 9, 1999 decision to deny parole primarily on four grounds: 1. The Parole Board is primarily concerned with your psychological profile, as reflected primarily by the testimony of Dr. Ferguson. Dr. Ferguson's testimony leads the Board Members to conclude that it is likely you would commit a crime if released on parole. 2. The Parole Board is also concerned regarding your lack of a suitable parole plan, especially in light of Dr. Ferguson's comments. 3. The Parole Board is also concerned with your failure to address in psychological counseling the issues that led you to engage in domestic violence with your first wife. 4. [T]he Parole Board Members are very concerned about your long standing history of being less than candid with Board Members and psychologists about issues that are at the core of your case. Although not specifically characterized as a separate ground for denial of parole, Trantino's professed intention to write a second book was sharply criticized by the Board in its decision denying parole. Perhaps no other conversation at your hearing on June 9, 1999 exemplifies areas in which you have not made great changes, than your conversation with Mr. Gomez regarding the possibility of you writing a book if you were paroled. We summarize the evidence in the record that is relevant to each of the grounds for denial of parole advanced by the Parole Board. We do so in reverse order because the evidence adduced in connection with the first ground, Trantino's psychological profile, is more complex than the evidence relating to the other grounds.
At the June 9, 1999 hearing, Board member Gomez criticized Trantino's intention to write a second book. MR. GOMEZ: The problem is basically the victims, once again, are going to suffer. You know what it is, you are going to suffer. You say you suffer about Charlee [Trantino's second wife], you don't want to hear people talk about the [m], but you are willing to write a book MR. TRANTINO: No. MR. GOMEZ:And have people suffer again. MR. TRANTINO: No, I am not willing to do that, and that is not my intention. If I try to write a book again, and it certainly wouldn't be about their families, their family members. MR. GOMEZ: You are missing the point. MR. TRANTINO: I am getting the point, but it's not MR. GOMEZ: You are profiting, you are profiting. MR. TRANTINO: Yes, profiting from a crime. MR. GOMEZ: You are talking about putting salt in people's wounds. You don't think that is putting salt in people's wounds? MR. TRANTINO: Yes. MR. GOMEZ: It's as simple as that. MR. TRANTINO: I was not thinking about that. MR. GOMEZ: The last question. MR. TRANTINO: I was thinking MR. GOMEZ: Continue if you want, I only have one more question. MR. TRANTINO: Go ahead. Later during the June 9, 1999 hearing Trantino responded to Board Member Gomez's criticism: MR. TRANTINO: What I was thinking of was Charlee and Charlee's debt that she has and trying to do something about that. MR. CONSOVOY: Now MR. TRANTINO: And a book, now the book I'm taking very seriously what Mr. Gomez said and what you are saying here. MR. CONSOVOY: Please do. MR. TRANTINO: I never, it doesI have expressed this to you over many times about the families here, it really does hurt me, I had a mother, that could have been my mother, it could have just been the opposite thing, I know the sorrow that the kind of feelings they have, I wouldn't want to hurt them. What I would be doing would not be to hurt them. MR. CONSOVOY: But that's one point, and as I say that's why you have to in or out of the prison, where ever you may go when we are done with today, you must deal with this narcissistic diagnosis and the features thereof, because that's what that is, Tom. I am not saying you meant to hurt them, you don't mean to hurt them, but the way you look at things that's how you looked at it. You were doing a good thing for Charlee. On the other hand, you were ruining MR. TRANTINO: I don't know. MR. CONSOVOY: That is my point. MR. TRANTINO: Yes. In addition, during Trantino's final remarks at the June 9 hearing, he stated: What you just said bothered me a lot, about the families. It just brought up stuff, you know, I work on that, and it hurts. I don't want to hurt them. And now I have toI am going to rethink about the book. After what you and Mr. Gomez pointed out, that bothered me a lot. I, more than anything, I'm sorry for what I did, I shot and killed two people. And it wasn't only their lives I took, their families, their families as well were affected right to this day, as you are pointing out here. And that is something that I try to live with, I try to deal with, I try to heal, I am ashamed of that.
The Board listed seven examples of when Trantino has been less than candid with authorities or psychologists or [has mitigated] central events [in his] life or aspects of [his] personality.
In February 1999 the Parole Board conducted an interview by telephone with Joseph Trabucco, the Director of psychological testing at Talbot Hall, whose qualifications include a master's degree in psychology. In September 1998, after numerous public officials had protested Trantino's assignment to Talbot Hall, Trabucco administered to Trantino a 175 question true-false test known as the MCMI-II, the result of which suggested that Trantino possessed a mild to moderate psychological dysfunction and stated that [a]lthough violence is not a major characteristic of this inmate's behavioral repertoire, there may be occasions when violence can be provoked, although not readily. Trabucco described Trantino as a very controlled individual, thinks about what he's saying, thinks about who he's speaking to, calculating if you will. In response to Board Chairman Consovoy's question concerning any specific types of instances that might provoke him to violence, Trabucco related an incident that the Board deemed significant in assessing Trantino's likelihood of recidivism. Trabucco stated that in September 1998 he tested Trantino about substance abuse only on the basis of events during the preceding year, and the test result revealed no substance abuse problem. Trantino was then asked to retake the same test, this time responding on the basis of his entire lifetime. According to Trabucco, Trantino became sort of agitated and definitely perturbed. He said Why are you making me do this? Trabucco stated that Trantino's veneer... started toto crack a little bit, and described the incident in the following manner: His face was kind of red, he was slightly more animated and agitated. And he said, You know, I know it's not you, Mr. Trabucco, but, you know, those guys at corrections, they're out to get me. And he went into this kind of spiel about how it wasn't me that was making him take this test, but other people, and they were going to take the results and do what they wanted to do anyway. And we got him to sit down again, and then he got up the third time and was then agitated enough, now again, I didn't feel threatened, I didn't feel, you know, that he was going to hit me or anything, but heit was the only time in this whole experience here when Iwhen I sensed that that veneer had cracked to some extent. He was highly animated and agitated, took his glasses off, was sort of pacing, was a very different Mr. Trantino then [sic] I think most people get to see. Andand well, he didn't takethe outcome was we didn'twe couldn't get him to sit down and take the other part of the test, and I'm not sure it mattered much in the long run anyway. But as I look back and look at the results of the testing and his experience here, I mean I think whatwhat it indicated to me was, that whenwhen you put him in a situation, when you press him, or put him in a situation he doesn't feel in control or totally comfortable with, you beginyou begin to see this other side ofof this person, which, you know, the cool calculated responses tend to vanish, and the agitation sets in. [ Trantino V, supra, 331 N.J.Super. at 589, 752 A. 2d 761.] Cynthia Smarook, an assessment counselor at Talbot Hall, who was interviewed by the Parole Board's executive director, confirmed Trabucco's characterization of the incident. Smarook also reported that during Trantino's stay at Talbot Hall, he was controlled, he was polite, he was cooperative, he was actually rather chatty, and had not exhibited any prior agitation, other than the incident. When told that Trantino later denied the incident, Smarook responded that: [H]e's either lying or itit happened fairly quickly and he just completely put it out of his mind thatthat it occurred. I don'tI can't tell whether or not he is deliberately lying about it. Itit was fairly quick before he was told he didn't have to take it based on thethe same stipulations as the rest of the population who does. At his June 4, 1999 hearing before the Parole Board, Chairman Consovoy, without mentioning Trabucco, referred to an incident at Talbot Hall during which Trantino became agitated and quite perturbed. Trantino denied that any such incident had occurred. Between the June 4 and June 9, 1999 Parole Board hearings Trantino apparently was shown a copy of Dr. Rosenfeld's report that referred to the Trabucco incident. At the June 9 hearing, when Trantino again was asked about the incident by Consovoy, with specific reference by name to Trabucco, Trantino explained his earlier denial and recounted his version of what had occurred: [On June 4] [y]ou didn't mention Mr. Or [sic] Dr., I think he is a psychologist, Tribucco [sic]. I know the incident now, there was a woman psychologist, she went to give me a test, and I am saying this is not appropriate, and it was in this computer room. Other people were there, including Dr. Trabucco was in the back, and I just turned to him, I said, Doctor, could you help out over here. And he said what's the problem? I stated the problem and he told her that this man is in remission, he does not have to take that test, that's what he said, not whatever is said there actually, that's not what happened. Now I might have been perturbed, certainly I was perturbed, but not angry, I was able to talk to him and he straightened it out. He said I didn't have to take it, that I am right. The man is in remission, he took the other test, all these other tests, he is okay, throw that away. That is what he said to that woman.