Opinion ID: 612705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Parole Commission's October 6, 2005, reconsideration of its May 2005 original jurisdiction decision

Text: In the Parole Commission's 30-year history, no Attorney General had ever sought review of an original jurisdiction decision. Based on the unprecedented review, it was necessary for the Parole Commission to develop procedures to handle the Attorney General's request. The Parole Commission scheduled two meetings for July 28, 2005, to develop these procedures. The first meeting was to be open to the public to discuss [r]ule amendments for reviewing future requests from the Attorney General for reconsideration of a Commission decision. The second meeting was to be closed to discuss the [p]rocedure to be followed for review of one original jurisdiction case upon request of the Attorney General as provided in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4215(c). [10] On July 18, 2005, Bowers' counsel faxed his objections to the Parole Commission's review of the original jurisdiction decision, as well as the Parole Commission's failure to give Bowers an opportunity to participate in the closed meeting. The Parole Commission provided the Department of Justice a draft set of rules and procedures for deciding the Attorney General's petition, and on July 27, 2005, the Department of Justice provided comments as to how its appeal should be handled. At the July 28, 2005, meeting, the Parole Commission postponed consideration of the procedures to be used in Bowers' case. The Parole Commission reconvened on August 2, 2005, at a second closed meeting and voted on the procedures for Bowers' case. According to an August 8, 2005, internal memorandum from Commissioner Spagnoli, the Parole Commission had not noticed the meeting as required by law. In a letter dated August 9, 2005, the Parole Commission sent Bowers and his attorney letters notifying them that [t]he Parole Commission has adopted procedures for consideration of the Attorney General's request for review in your case, and it has enclosed a copy of the procedures. The Parole Commission noted it would consider the Attorney General's request at its next regularly scheduled meeting on October 5, 2005. Under the procedures adopted by the Parole Commission, the Attorney General, Ranger Patrick's widow, and any other interested party had 20 days to submit written comments. Bowers then had 20 days to file his response. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General filed comments on September 1, 2005. On September 21, 2005, Bowers filed a timely response. The Department of Justice filed another set of comments on September, 30, 2005, and requested an opportunity to appear before the Parole Commission during its closed meeting. [11] On October 3, 2005, Bowers' counsel objected to the September 30, 2005, filing as unauthorized by the Parole Commission's newly-adopted procedures. Bowers' counsel also filed a substantive response to the September 30, 2005, comments. On October 6, 2005, the Parole Commission considered Bowers' case in a closed meeting. [12] Commissioner Fulwood recused himself. At the meeting, Assistant General Counsel Thiessen orally presented the case, stating he was the person who would know the facts of this case better than anybody because I defended it several times in federal court and have been working closely with the Attorney General's Office back and forth regarding this review. [13] Thiessen then summarized the underlying crime, the 1979 escape attempt, Bowers' political views, and the fears expressed by Ranger Patrick's widow. Thiessen recommended denying mandatory parole. Ultimately, all four Commissioners agreed that the escape attempt was serious institutional misconduct, while Chairman Reilly, Commissioners Cushwa and Spagnoli also all found that Bowers was likely to commit a crime in the future. Commissioners Cushwa and Spagnoli further found Bowers' 1990 letter to Ranger Patrick's widow to be a serious violation of institutional rules. On October 7, 2005, the Parole Commission issued a Notice of Action on Appeal informing Bowers of the parole denial. The notice stated Bowers had seriously violated the rules of the institution and that there is a reasonable probability that [Bowers] will commit a Federal, State, or local crime. With respect to the finding that Bowers was likely to commit another crime, the Parole Commission explained that the killing of Ranger Patrick was motivated by your attitude towards and hatred for the United States Government, and it found that Bowers continue[d] to harbor the same beliefs and attitudes that led [him] to murder Ranger Patrick. The Parole Commission relied on the 2002 radio interview, in which Bowers reiterated [his] hatred for the United States Government and his continued claims of being held as a political prisoner. Finally, the Parole Commission relied on the 1990 letter, which further indicates that you are likely to commit a crime.