RUMORS - December 2006

RUMOR 1: A rumor amongst the inmate population has been circulating regarding a change of law affecting inmates convicted of an aggravated offense and their release to parole. The rumor alleges that an inmate convicted of an aggravated offense is to be released once the inmate has serve one-fourth of his/her sentence. The rumor further alleges that the Supreme Court of the United States has required the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to release all inmates once an inmate has served one-fourth of his/her sentence.

There is absolutely no truth or validity to ANY of this rumor. First of all, the only way a law would change would be if the Texas Legislature met. The Texas Legislature meets every two-years. The last time the Texas Legislature met was in 2005, therefore they will not meet again until 2007. So, no law change has taken place regarding the release of inmates to parole of any nature. There is also no validity to the Supreme Court of the United States changing any of the rules or laws regarding the release of inmates to parole. There has been no change to the law regarding the requirements for eligibility or for consideration of release to parole of any nature by any entity whatsoever.

FACT: The law presently mandates that an inmate convicted of an aggravated offense (3g) must serve one-half of his/her sentence day for day before becoming eligible for review by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to be considered for release to parole.

RUMOR 2: There is a rumor circulating amongst the inmate population alleging that Ray Hill stated on Pacifica Radio Prison Show that there would be an elimination of the presence of attorneys representing inmates appearing before the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to argue in behalf of their clients for release to parole. I contacted Mr. Hill regarding this allegation and he informed me that it was untrue and his actual remarks were misconstrued. He will attempt to stop this rumor by addressing it at his next broadcast and requested that I include the matter within the context of my web page.

FACT: There is no truth or validity to this rumor. There is no blanket denial of attorneys appearing before the Board Members to argue in a client’s behalf.

Mr. Hill was contacted and informed that an attorney who does volume representation of inmates appeared before a Parole Board Member with a large number of inmate files and took up a very considerable portion of the Parole Board Member’s day and Mr. Hill mentioned this on his broadcast. Afterwards, the Board Members were very upset regarding the entirety of this matter and requested clarification as to what the requirements and regulations are that they must follow. The Board Members were informed that they do not have to allow any person to appear before them with the exception being the victim or victim’s family. It is at the Board Member’s discretion as to whether or not an attorney or any other person may be granted an appearance before them to argue in an inmates behalf prior to casting their vote. The Board Members may determine this on a case by case basis. This has always been the rule and to date it has not changed. Always remembering that it is at the Board Members discretion to allow such an appearance, I always respectfully request such an appearance and have not been denied same except in a very rare instance.

RUMOR: Ex parte Gross - There is a rumor alleging that the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding good time, work time and the parole system and how an inmate was not actually receiving credit under the present system for working and behaving. I researched this matter in the PACER data bank (the Federal Court data bank for the entire United States) and I called the United States Supreme Court.

FACT: There is no appeal or writ pending or filed with the United States Supreme Court even using the name Gross. There is a lawsuit pending at the United States District Court level with this name. Presently, this particular lawsuit has been referred to the magistrate for evidentiary hearing.

FURTHER RUMOR: There is also a newspaper article circulating through the prison system indicating Ex parte Gross was heard in the United States Supreme Court and sets forth questions and answers by individual Justices on this matter.

FURTHER FACTS: A review of this article indicates numerous misspelled words, incorrect punctuation as well as inaccurate legal cites. This appears to be a product of someone’s vivid imagination who possibly has nothing better to do. I do not know who created this practical joke, but, I for one, do not find it entertaining or amusing. I am in high hopes that addressing this issue will end the numerous letters I have received regarding this and put an end to the circulation of this invalid article and all rumors it has spawned.