close
close

Lawsuit against Oklahoma's juvenile probation policy nears trial

Jake Ramsey and Keaton Ross
| Oklahoma Clock

play

Dwain Thomas has appeared on the Oklahoma Board of Pardons and Parole’s violent offender list five times since 2010.

At each hearing, the 44-year-old inmate received a positive recommendation from parole officers and demonstrated an excellent behavior and employment history. Yet the parole board has consistently refused to allow Thomas to undergo a more intensive second review. In court documents, Thomas argues that he was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder when he was 15 years old.

Oklahoma's parole board operates part-time and does not interview prisoners or their attorneys during the first phase of the parole process for violent offenders. All offenders, whether they are 15 or 50 years old at the time of conviction, are subject to the same risk assessment criteria.

“For Mr. Thomas and others similarly situated who have matured, who have done everything in their power to reform and demonstrate their rehabilitation, and who the Supreme Court has said deserve a second chance to live outside prison walls, the likelihood that they will die in an Oklahoma prison is far greater than that they will ever get a second chance,” his lawyers from the MacArthur Project and the law firm Kirkland and Ellis wrote in a petition filed in federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma.

In the sweeping federal lawsuit, which is set to go to trial in the coming months, Thomas argues that Oklahoma's parole process for juvenile homicide offenders is unconstitutional and needs to be overhauled. Chief Judge Timothy DeGiusti is presiding over the nearly four-year-old case, which was initially dismissed but reinstated on appeal by the 10th Circuit in February 2022.

If Thomas wins, the court could force Oklahoma to create a special parole process for state prisoners convicted as juveniles, taking into account research showing that juveniles are less culpable than adults and more capable of change and rehabilitation.

Thomas argues that Oklahoma does not meet the standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 in Miller v. Alabama. The court ruled that a mandatory life sentence without parole for juveniles was unconstitutional, except in rare cases where rehabilitation is deemed impossible.

Thomas also points to the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Graham v. Florida, which established that states must give juveniles a meaningful chance at release if they demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation. Oklahoma's parole system for violent offenders, which is multi-tiered and leaves the governor with the final decision on a prisoner's release, does not meet that standard.

Governor Kevin Stitt, Department of Corrections Director Steven Harpe and Department of Pardons and Parole Executive Director Tom Bates are listed as defendants in their official capacities. All are expected to testify at the start of the trial.

The state maintains that parole is fundamentally discretionary and that there is no legal right to appeal a decision or challenge evidence presented, and that none of its procedures violate the U.S. Constitution.

“Oklahoma’s parole system has been and continues to be a meaningful and realistic option for inmates serving life sentences who demonstrate rehabilitation,” Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General Alejandra J. Brigida wrote in a joint status report.

The deadline for filing the pre-trial report is September 19. The court will likely set the trial date for later this year or early 2025.

Terry Hunt was 16 when he was sentenced to life in prison in Tulsa County for first-degree murder. Now 43, he said he has had no disciplinary violations in two decades and has received a positive recommendation from parole officers five times since 2011. Last year, the parole board denied his request, and the Tulsa County District Attorney's Office appealed his release.

Hunt said he understood that the parole board was struggling with a heavy caseload and time constraints, but hoped the court's decision would lead to the establishment of a special juvenile court list.

“I'm not saying you should be released because you're a minor, but you should be able to show your full body of work,” Hunt said by phone from the Joseph Harp Correctional Facility in Lexington. “After 10, 20 or 30 years in prison, you can pretty much see who has reformed and who hasn't.”

Sue Hinton, a retired teacher and justice reform advocate who has attended nearly every parole board meeting since 2019, said the board is much more likely to recommend early release when a prisoner or family member makes a personal request for rehabilitation. The parole board changed its procedures for in-person hearings in the late 1990s, when the state's prison population skyrocketed.

Hinton said a special process that allows juvenile homicide offenders to speak directly with committee members early on and discuss their rehabilitation in detail would be ideal.

“The difference between whether the parole board looks at a file or a face is astonishing,” she said.

The MacArthur Center for Justice filed a similar lawsuit in Missouri in 2017. In that case, the federal court issued an order requiring the state to change more than 20 aspects of its juvenile parole process. These included requiring parole applicants to have legal counsel at all hearings and requiring parole board members to receive training in juvenile parole. At least 17 juvenile offenders in Missouri who were serving life sentences were released following the court's decision.

Andrew Keats, a senior attorney at the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, said parole boards and governors face significant political backlash when a violent offender released on parole reoffends, and are often inclined to say no.

Clear criteria and standards for juvenile justice reform could help officials make safer and more informed decisions, Keats said.

“If they've shown change, they should be released under the Supreme Court rulings,” Keats said. “And with parole, you're still serving a life sentence. You're just now under supervision outside the community.”

Hunt, who secured a welding job and housing before his last hearing, will be eligible for parole again in October 2026. He said he looks forward to behaving well and making another plea for his release.

“You either get better or you get worse,” Hunt said. “You definitely understand yourself better. It opened my eyes to the damage I've done. I want to do good and be able to do good.”

Oklahoma Watch (at oklahomawatch.org) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that covers state political issues.

You may also like...