Parole Board Faces Scrutiny After Court Ruling

Three inmates, Josue Ortiz, Derrick Sanchez, and Gregory August, took the Parole Board to court, challenging its refusal to grant them parole. Their claims centered on fairness, transparency, and whether the board properly assessed their risk to public safety. Ortiz and Sanchez, both serving time for serious crimes, argued that they were denied parole without clear reasons or a fair process. Ortiz claimed he was never told why his application was rejected, while Sanchez said his prison infractions were used unfairly against him. The court, however, sided with the Parole Board, ruling that its decisions were lawful and reasonable, though it ordered the board to provide written reasons within thirty days. Gregory August’s case was different. Convicted of murder and serving a thirty-year sentence, August was denied parole based heavily on a psychiatric report that he never saw. The court found this to be procedurally unfair and quashed the Board’s decision. August will now be re-evaluated and given a new hearing, with full access to the psychiatric report. The ruling highlights a broader issue: the need for the Parole Board to improve its transparency and record-keeping. The judge urged reforms to ensure fairness and accountability in future parole decisions.