Opinion ID: 612705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Parole Commission's February 17, 2005, reopening of Bowers' case

Text: On February 16, 2005, a few days before Bowers' scheduled release, Parole Commission staff member Stephen Husk advised the Parole Commission's General Counsel and Chief of Staff that a victim had not been notified of Bowers' mandatory parole hearing. The next day, the Parole Commission received a letter from Ranger Patrick's widow reporting that she had not been notified of the hearing and requesting that she be allowed to provide information to the Parole Commission. That same day, Commissioners Spagnoli and Cushwa voted to reopen the case, delay Bowers' release, and schedule a special reconsideration hearing pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(f). The Parole Commission issued a Notice of Action on February 17, 2005, reopening the case pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(f) to consider new adverse information and stating that the Parole Commission has received information from the registered victim(s) in your case that may impact the Commission's decision to parole you. On March 18, 2005, Douglas Thiessen, the Parole Commission's Assistant General Counsel, prepared a memorandum noting that Ranger Patrick's widow had sent the Parole Commission a letter regarding a 2002 radio interview given by Bowers. Thiessen listened to the interview several times and summarized its contents. In the interview, Bowers maintained his innocence and stated his belief that the FBI targeted him because of his political activity. Bowers also identifie[d] himself with other prisoners who have labeled themselves `political prisoners.' That same day, the Parole Commission provided Bowers a Supplemental Notice of Action advising him that it had received two letters from the wife of the victim and one letter from a confidential source. The March 18, 2005, notice specified that the victim's wife's March 12, 2005, letter described an attempt to contact her via the mail and [Bowers'] repeated denial of guilt and multiple claims (both at sentencing and recently) to be a political prisoner. The notice also specified that the confidential source's March 14, 2005, letter asserted that the 1979 escape attempt and 1990 letter to Mrs. Lee constituted serious institutional misconduct under 18 U.S.C. § 4206(d). The Parole Commission noted it would consider the new information, as well as the information already in the Parole Commission's possession, at the special reconsideration hearing. Specifically, the Parole Commission stated it would determine (1) whether your political views were the impetus for your crime, and whether you continue to be motivated by the underlying reason for your crime (your reported desire to kill a law enforcement officer), if you were to be released from prison, (2) whether you pose a particular risk to the victim's family, and (3) whether your 1979 escape attempt and 1990 letter writing to the victim constitute serious institutional misconduct under 18 U.S.C. § 4206(d). On March 21, 2005, Hearing Examiner Paul Howard conducted the special reconsideration hearing. Howard found that the issues raised in the Notices of Action and the letters were not new and significant information because the Commission has addressed them and they are not relevant to the subject's current mindset and behavior. Howard stated Bowers has been a model prisoner since 1979 and there is simply no basis to deny mandatory parole at this time. Howard recommended Bowers be granted mandatory parole effective May 7, 2005. Howard also recommended designating the case for the original jurisdiction of the Parole Commission [b]ased on the significant public interest in this case, the nature of the offense, and that it being a life sentence. Hearing Examiner K. Pinner concurred with the grant of mandatory parole and the original jurisdiction designation, but recommended that the parole date be set at June 21, 2005. A second Hearing Examiner, S. Husk, agreed with Hearing Examiner Pinner. Both Husk and Pinner agreed that Bowers did not pose a risk upon release based on his political beliefs. Husk also weighed the seriousness of the past infraction(s) against the entire institutional record and conclude[d] that the seriousness of the escape attempt [did] not overrule [Bowers'] suitability for mandatory parole at the current time. Thus, the recommendation of the Hearing Panel was to grant Bowers' mandatory parole effective June 21, 2005, and set the case for the original jurisdiction of the Parole Commission.