By Cheyenne Galloway
SAN DIEGO, CA – California Innocence Project staff attorney Claudia Salinas, in a San Diego Union-Tribune Opinion Column, writes Californian parole policies threaten freedom for those innocent parole candidates, offering her client’s struggle for parole as supportive evidence.
Salinas has been, since 2019, a member of the California Innocence Project, which provides free legal assistance to inmates that maintain their fact-based innocence on the condition of solid evidence pointing to this innocence.
When Salinas first began working with the California Innocence Project, she writes, she met a client who, from her perspective, “seemed puzzled as to how he got convicted for this crime.”
She conducted interviews with said client to gauge the validity of his story. She soon realized his sincerity due to the tone of his voice and his intentions to maintain his innocence despite the possibility of remaining in prison.
As reported by Salinas in the article, this client had a reputable record, which only heightened the legitimacy of his innocence. The outcome is the possibility of parole if the client properly demonstrates “insight as to his commitment offense.”
However, when it came time for the initial parole suitability hearing, the parole board denied parole for at least three years, despite it finding his claim of innocence plausible.
California law surrounding parole gives us insight into the dilemma of innocent parole candidates, said Salinas, adding, “The parole board must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the crime, including the nature and the gravity of the offense, the candidate’s history of violence, the candidate’s behavior while incarcerated.”
Salinas argues the levels of guilt and sincerity the candidate feels regarding the crime are the most important for those innocent parole candidates.
Nonetheless, Salinas writes, it is difficult for those candidates who are genuinely innocent to feel guilty and apologetic towards a crime they did not commit, which leaves innocent parole candidates two choices: 1) contend a reasonable claim of fact-based innocence, or 2) admit accountability of the crime, but jeopardize the possibility of reversing the conviction in the future.
Unfortunately, Salinas notes, the former of the options listed above does not guarantee parole, for officials may still require the client to take responsibility on several fronts to prove they are not a danger to society. Moreover, the latter does not always warrant parole and harms clients more than benefits.
“In theory, not requiring the admission of guilt to the commitment offense in a parole hearing is great for innocent parole candidates. However, in practice, arguing a plausible claim of innocence often plays out as a roadblock to freedom,” writes Salinas.
Salinas adds:
“Despite the extremely difficult standard, a few California Innocence Project clients have beaten the odds and been released on parole while maintaining their innocence. Even though they were not exonerated, they are free of the confines of prison and can work toward reintegrating back into society.
“In the chance I am not able to find the evidence of innocence necessary to reverse my client’s conviction, I hope for more favorable case law to emerge to help him and many like him navigate the contradictions in the parole suitability process.
“Otherwise, innocent individuals remain in this burdensome dilemma of accepting responsibility for something they have not done in efforts to simply regain their freedom.”
