A federal judge heard arguments Tuesday in a case dealing with Arkansas’ parole system.
Convicted criminals released from prison can be re-arrested and forced to serve up to six months in jail if they break the rules of their parole — a process known as revocation. In Arkansas, the Post-Prison Transfer Board hears these cases.
In court filings, inmates describe the revocation process as confusing and mysterious. They say they were denied their constitutional rights, pressured into admitting guilt, not given notice before their hearing and not offered the speedy ability to appeal. The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the inmates “suffer irreparable harm” as they “languish” in county jails.
The ACLU says Arkansas is violating both the 14th Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as many plaintiffs are illiterate or hearing impaired and not offered reasonable accommodations.
At a hearing in Little Rock Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker heard opening and closing statements as well as testimony from one witness on each side.
The state's response to the suit focused on Supreme Court precedent and process arguments. They argued that the plaintiffs don't comprise a proper class action under Arkansas law.
The ACLU called plaintiff Shannon Miner to the stand. He had his parole revoked in November of last year and is currently in state custody.
The 49-year-old was convicted of drug possession in 2021. He was initially released on parole in 2022.
Miner has schizophrenia, ADHD and a seventh-grade education. He told the court he hears voices and struggles with concentration. He testified in an orange jumpsuit, struggling to lift his shackled hand to be sworn in.
Miner is illiterate, and says he could not read important documents during his parole revocation hearing. He also relied on help from the judge in remembering the current year.
“Didn't even know I had a parole hearing,” he told the court.
Miner says state officials came to his cell and announced the hearing about an hour before it happened, meaning he had minutes to craft a defense.
“They just came and got me,” he said. “I didn't know what to do.”
He says he didn't know he could have defended himself or called a witness. He wanted to call the arresting officer who missed the hearing.
For the state, Senior Assistant Attorney General Jordan Broyles Hallenbeck pointed out that he did sign revocation hearing documents telling him his rights.
“You say you can't write,” she said, pointing out the signature line. Miner did fill in the blank, but the mark appears less like a signature and more like a line.
Miner said he only signed the document because he felt he “had no choice.”
The story echoes the dozens of other allegations in ACLU filings. Many prisoners struggled to read or felt pressured to sign revocation paperwork. Others were unaware they could call witnesses or have representation.
For example, plaintiff Antonio Guyton says he was pressured to sign away his rights.
Guyton was not present at Tuesday's hearing. In filings, he says he was held in the Washington County Detention Center when his Community Supervision Officer (CSO) came to him and “told me to sign a paper agreeing to a six month parole sentence.”
If true, this means he did not have the chance to refute the charges.
“The CSO told me that I could have a hearing,” he said “But the CSO said words to the effect of ‘all I have to do is prove you are in jail' in order to revoke my parole."
Guyton has a brain injury and says he struggles to move, communicate and understand. During his hearing, he tried his “best to cross-examine my CSO, as well as the police. However, given my lack of formal legal training, I did not feel prepared to conduct these cross-examinations.”
In a message to Little Rock Public Radio, Guyton described his situation as “dire” and confusing. He will be eligible for parole in June.
Lawyers for the state and the Post-Prison Transfer Board called one witness Tuesday. Brandon Mills is a parole hearing officer, but not a named defendant in the case.
Mills says he always tells the offender their rights and shows them forms with the same information. It's unclear whether the form he mentioned in court is the same from the court documents. When questioned by the judge, Mills said the revocation process was going through a three-year update.
When asked by plaintiffs about disability accommodation in the revocation process, he seemed unsure.
The ACLU is asking Baker to enjoin the state from performing revocation hearings and pay for attorneys’ fees. Baker says she will issue a written order in the case.
