DEC. 2012 BPH Executive Board meeting - Dr. Latessa on PCL-R

BPH's December 2012 Executive Board meeting had several speakers including Dr. Latessa Professor at the University of Cincinnati and Dr. Kusaj (current FAD chief psychologist).

Edward J. Latessa received his Ph.D. from the Ohio State University in 1979 and is Interim Dean and Professor of the College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services at the University of Cincinnati.  Dr. Latessa has published over 140 works in the area of criminal justice, corrections, and juvenile justice.  He is co-author of seven books including Corrections in the Community, and Corrections in America. Professor Latessa has directed over 150 funded research projects including studies of day reporting centers, juvenile justice programs, drug courts, prison programs, intensive supervision programs, halfway houses, and drug programs. He and his staff have also assessed over 600 correctional programs throughout the United States, and he has provided assistance and workshops in over forty-five states. Dr. Latessa served as President of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (1989-90).

Successful Rehabilitation was the focus of  Dr. Ed Latessa's presentation. Dr. Kusaj's presentation focused on Risk Assessment and Parole Decision Making.

In attendance were most of the BPH Commissioners. A transcript of this public session is available. Please contact the Law office of Diane T. Letarte for a copy of the pdf file transcript.

One interesting comment (below) by Dr. Latessa on the result and use of the PCL-R test (aka psychopathy check list) when questioned by one of the BPH commissioner in attendance.

Below is a short EXCERPT of one Dr. Latessa's response at the December 2012 Executive Board Meeting Session:


COMMISSIONER FRITZ:
We have some inmates who have high -- are high on the Psychopathy Checklist. And are there ideas -- You know, some of it's historical,  some of it's fluid, ideas for them, the programs that they need to work on those issues on the checklist.

DR. LATESSA: That's a tough question. I'm not,  you know, I've done some work in this area. I'm not,  you know, an expert per se in psychopathy. There are  those including one of my colleagues I work closely with  who believes that we can bring about change with  psychopaths. Conventional research wisdom says they do  not respond well to the traditional approaches. They do  not respond to talk therapy at all. COG, no.

There is  some evidence that putting them in treatment makes them  worse. And the reason is because these are people that  are bright, manipulative, and when you put them in group  settings, right, what they're learning is what people's  weaknesses are and how to go at them and so forth. For  example, in our studies in Ohio, we found that putting low risk sex offenders and high risk sex offenders was a  big mistake. You increased dramatically the risk for  low risk sex offenders, and I think it's because they  were learning these things from the high risk people. I do know there are some states that do work with  psychopaths and they tend to keep them together. So  they do not put them in with other inmates a YA sex offender program. For example, Wisconsin used to do  that. I don't know if they still do. So what they're  doing is providing treatment, but that's an inclusionary  criteria. You don't put them in with non, you know.

The label psychopath is a tough label. It's a damning  label. I think where you really are concerned is when  they have a history of violent behavior. I would never  just do a psychopathy checklist on everybody. It's a  big mistake. But if they've got a history of violent  behavior, I think it's appropriate to screen them for that and then you have to make decisions accordingly. But I can't stand here and say we've got all these great  treatment modalities for them. Most folks would say  that, you know, we don't.

Not all psychopaths, you know, get into trouble. Some of them are CEOs, some of  them sell insurance, you know, used cars, brothers-in- law, people like that. But when they've got that  history of violence, then I think you have to be -- I'd always err on the side of caution.


For  more thorough viewing of the interactions between the BPH commissioners and the Guest Psychologist speaker please contact Attorney Diane T. Letarte for a copy of the transcript at email: dletarte@earthlink.net please specify in the SUBJECT line that you are requesting BPH Dec 2012 Session transcript from my BLOG posting.

In Re VIcks **ORAL ARGUMENT*** 1/8/2013 - Wait and See

IN RE VICKS  195 Cal.App.4th 475 (2011)
In re MICHAEL VICKS on Habeas Corpus.  No. D056998.
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.  May 11, 2011.

Attorney Steve M. Defilippis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner Michael Vicks.

Background Summary: 

In 1983, Michael Vicks was convicted of two counts of rape in concert, two counts of forcible oral copulation in concert, three counts of kidnapping, one count of kidnapping to commit robbery, and multiple counts of robbery. Vicks was sentenced to a total term of 37+ years to LIFE. Vicks, now 51 years old, has been incarcerated for more than 28 years.

At Vicks's first parole hearing, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) found him unsuitable for parole.  The BPH further concluded a five-year denial of parole was appropriate under the circumstances.
Vicks petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus, but the court denied the writ, concluding the BPH's decision was supported by some evidence. Vicks then petitioned the Appellate court for a writ of habeas corpus. Vicks asserts the BPH's decision to deny parole violated due process in 2 ways:

1) its conclusion that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released on parole was contrary to the only reliable evidence that he was not currently dangerous.
2) He also asserts the imposition of a five-year (Marsy’s Law. Prop 9) cannot be applied to him without violating ex post facto principles.

Although the Court concluded the BPH's decision to deny parole was supported by some evidence!
The Court also concluded that the application of  Marsy's Law violates ex post facto principles.

**** SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENT  Marsy's Law (Prop9) Heard 1/8/2013 ****

Current California Supreme Court 7 Justices:
(left to right) Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (middle), Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter, and Associate Justice Goodwin Liu.

Quick Summary of the Oral argument as edited by Lifer criminal defense Attorney Diane Letarte:

Justice Liu seemed to be our biggest LIFER advocate, while Justice Corrigan appeared to be clearly on the other side (no surprise given her 1983-1986 Position as Special Consultant, President’s Task Force on Victims of Violent Crime, 1982.)

Other justices were on the fence while other were hard to read. 

The California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye was sworn into office on January 3, 2011 is the first Asian-Filipina American and the second woman to serve as the state’s Chief Justice. She could go either way.

Of course, you never really can call these Oral argument cases, so we'll just have to wait & see for the official written OPINION.

Case opinions of the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal are available on this website.


(A Personal thanks to the In re Vicks' Attorney who argued the case on 1/8/2013 - Steve M. Defilippis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner Michael Vicks.)

In re Denham 12/5/12: NEW Parole Hearing ORDERed: Regulation say nothing explicitly about "escalating criminal conduct"

Filed December 5, 2012, First District, Div. Three Cite as A133492


SUMMARY:  The  Court of Appeal did not "buy" the BPH's reasoning given for the denial of Parole and thus ordered a new Parole Hearing. Two major reasons used by the Board was;  1) "escalating pattern of criminal conduct" and 2)“unstable social history".

See below for the Rebuttal from the Court specifically on those 2 reasons stated above.
 For Full text see http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1212//A133492

  
The Board relied on Denham‟s “escalating pattern of criminal conduct,” which was purportedly evidenced by his preincarceration arrests for which he sustained no criminal convictions, and his 1987 conviction for weapons possession while in prison. The regulations concerning parole suitability say nothing explicitly about escalating criminal conduct. Among the factors tending to show unsuitability for parole is “Previous Record of Violence. The prisoner on previous occasions inflicted or attempted to inflict serious injury on a victim, particularly if the prisoner demonstrated serious assaultive behavior at an early age.” (Regs., § 2402, subd. (c)(2).) The regulations do, however, provide that the Board is to consider all relevant, reliable information, including “past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented.” (Regs., § 2402, subd. (b).) Thus, the Board was entitled to recognize that Denham‟s criminal conduct escalated from drug and weapons possession to murder. However, where the Board considers that factor to be predictive of current dangerousness, it must articulate why that is the case. (In re Roderick (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 242, 264.) “ „[I]mmutable facts such as an inmate‟s criminal history‟ . . . do not by themselves demonstrate an inmate „continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.‟ (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1221, original italics.)” (Sanchez, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at p. 975.) 

The Board also relied on Denham‟s “unstable social history” based on the fact that “he was involved in drug sales prior to incarceration.” However, Denham‟s involvement in selling drugs does not address his social history as that factor is defined in the regulations. An “unstable social history” is defined as a situation where “[t]he prisoner has a history of unstable or tumultuous relationships with others.” (Regs., § 2402, subd. (c)(3).) Conversely, “a stable social history” is defined as a situation where “[t]he prisoner has experienced reasonably stable relationships with others.” (Id., § 2402, subd. (d)(2).) Here, there is no evidence of any tumultuous or particularly unstable relationships. Indeed, when considering the date of Denham‟s next parole hearing, the Board found by clear and convincing evidence that public safety did not require an additional 15-year period of incarceration before his next hearing because of Denham‟s “[s]table social history.” Denham‟s involvement in selling drugs, however, was certainly a factor that the Board could consider in assessing parole suitability. (Regs., § 2402, subd. (b).) But given Denham‟s lack of any substance abuse history since 1986, his long-standing participation in 12-step programs, and his development of prosocial vocational skills, the Board must explain how his preincarceration history as a drug dealer predicts his current dangerousness.

The Board cites no evidence establishing that Denham‟s participation in the crime was anything other than what he described at the 2010 parole hearing.

CONCLUSION

A New Lifer Parole Suitability hearing was required when the board's denial was based on the defendant's lack of insight into his crime (among others stated above, his history of selling drugs but it did not adequately take into account his acceptance of responsibility for his crime or his longstanding participation in 12-step programs and other parole suitability factors.