The most important element for inmates preparing petitions to a court is “Telling your story so the person reading your case says, ‘This is different,’” according to JFK Professor of Law Stephanie Adraktas. Speaking to inmates at The New Leaf program on November 20, 2009, Prof.Adraktas said that the main mistake made by inmates preparing habeas petitions is putting the law first and not talking about the facts of the case.
“Front and center of the petition should be your story and why the Board (of Parole Hearings) got it wrong,” Prof. Adraktas said. She advised using examples of court decisions that grant petitions and talking about who the person was before they came to prison, what they did in committing their crime and what they did within the institution.
A law clerk working for a judge usually reads a petition that is filed and so Prof. Adraktas advised providing an explanation that the reader can relate to. “If you tell the story in a way that doesn’t emphasize why your case is different, it will blow past the reader,” she said. “Courts don’t read everything you write.”
Also, a petition doesn’t need to be written in stuffy language. Prof. Adraktas said that your story gets buried when you don’t state plainly the truth about your life. She counseled that it is better to speak to the Board of Commissioners in a “simple, plain way” because it is easier to understand and makes for a better transcript. She also advised to “get out quickly” from questions you can’t answer instead of giving long responses.
Getting the attention of the reader of your petition is more important because “the Board is not acting fairly and courts are reversing the Board with more frequency. Court cases are forcing the Board to work harder to rationalize the decision they make,” Prof. Adraktas said, adding, “The tide is turning away from the situation where the Board could say anything they wanted against you and it would stick.”
The California Supreme Court’s ruling in In re Lawrence 44 Cal. 4th 1181 (2008) requires that a Board’s decision denying parole be supported by some reliable evidence showing current dangerousness. Denial of parole based on “old facts” may not comport with the Lawrence standard, Prof. Adraktas said.
Prof. Adraktas advised that when structuring a petition for filing in state court, you must not only discuss rights under State law but also cite the U.S. Constitution and claim that both state and federal due process rights have been violated.
Prof. Adraktas advised that when preparing Board of Parole Hearings, you should review past transcripts to see where you could have given better responses. She also advised that it is important to document your parole plans in a convincing way.
Prof. Adraktas was accompanied by four law students who conducted workshops to assist inmates in the areas of preparing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, preparing for a board hearing and discussing issues relating to the three strikes law. Prof. Adraktas said that she anticipated that the ruling in the Hayward V. Marshall case now pending before an en banc panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals [Case Number 06-55392] will affirm that lifers in California have a federally protected liberty interest in parole. She speculated that the Ninth Circuit is taking time in order to draft “a bullet proof opinion that will not get reversed by the United States Supreme Court.”