Graziano v. Pataki update: December 10th 2010

A major disappointment in the Graziano v. Pataki federal civil rights case, which aims to restore justice and fairness to the parole hearings of inmates convicted of violent felonies.

GRAZIANO v. PATAKI update from the Prison Action Network:

On Friday, Dec 10 2010, Judge Seibel of the US District Court, Southern District of New York, dismissed the above-referenced case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court declined to follow the law of the case decided by the late Judge Brieant, and despite not finding a change in the applicable law, decided to follow a non-binding, unpublished opinion by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In short, the judge stated that even if the NY Parole Board is violating state law by deciding that all those convicted of murder should be denied parole, it is a matter of concern for the state courts, not the federal constitution. Robert Isseks, Alex Smith and Peter Sell, the legal team representing Graziano et. al. intend to appeal this ruling.

Additionally, in September Judge McDonough in Albany State Supreme Court dismissed their claim on state law grounds. They plan to appeal to the Second Circuit.

Graziano v. Pataki update: November 4th 2008

Update from Robert Isseks and Peter Sell, given to the Prison Action Network:

"Initially the state moved to dismiss our case, arguing it does not belong in federal court, because federal constitutional rights were not violated. Judge Brieant denied the state's motion. There was a change in the administration, the state moved again to dismiss, Brieant denied that motion as well. Since then we’ve been involved in the discovery process. The purpose now is to amass evidence of the policy as we alleged. During this time decisions have been made in district courts in NY that disagree with Brieant’s decision, saying it does not belong in Federal court; that it may violate state law but not federal. Judge Brieant died and Judge Cathy Seibel is our new judge; we go before her the first time on Nov. 6 and the due process decision will be discussed. The case is about how it is that these commissioners, usually 3 of them, make the decisions that they make. We believe that they are made arbitrarily in accordance with a predetermined plan based on the parole commissioner's personal philosophy and not in accordance with statues. If a judge decided on 15 to life as sufficient, how does the board then reach a decision that it's not true or sufficient? If the board says because of the crime you committed you are still a danger, they are supposed to express how you are still a danger and they are not doing that, they are just saying that because the crime was done, there is a danger. We have the evidence that this is what is going on, the question is does that constitute a federal due process violation? That’s what needs to be decided before we can move forward.

The statistics show that the people who committed these violent offenses are the least likely to repeat. Those statistics refute the argument that these people who committed these crimes years ago are still a danger."

Graziano v. Pataki update: September 24th 2008

As a result of the death of Judge Charles L. Brieant Jr. on July 20th, the Graziano v. Pataki case has been assigned to the Honorable Cathy Seibel.

The lawyers are scheduling the final depositions then the case should be ready for motions.

Death of Judge Charles L. Brieant Jr.

Sadly we have to report that Judge Charles L. Brieant Jr., a former chief judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, died on July 20th in Manhattan.

Judge Brieant had been presiding over the long-running Graziano v. Pataki civil rights case, which aims to restore fairness to the parole hearings of inmates convicted of violent felonies.

Graziano v. Pataki update: December 12th 2007

Latest news from the Prison Action Network: Judge Brieant has arranged for the next meeting in the Graziano et al v. Pataki et al case to take place in court on December 20th 2007. The meeting will probably involve scheduling the case for trial.