Prisoners' Rights and Advocacy Law Clinic

Gerard Djate Achieves the Impossible

Gerard Djate, 3L, represented a client at a parole revocation hearing before the U.S. Parole Commission and achieved the impossible. Upon entering the hearing area he discovered that the two hearing examiners on duty were Michael Green (the most lenient) and Charles "Hang 'em up" Lyons (the toughest examiner). As luck would have it, our case was before Mr. Lyons. Unfazed, Djate made his procedural arguments, presented evidence obtained through his thorough investigation, and presented his witnesses (whom he managed to get into the courtroom from jail). The client had only administrative violations (no new crimes) but the recommended guidelines indicated a sentence of 12-16 months. Before deliberating, Mr. Lyons told us that he was considering making a decision above the guidelines because the client had been on parole and revoked previously. After listening to Djate, witnesses, and engaging in a 30- minute long dialogue with the client, Mr. Lyons gave the client a 6-month set off (6 months below the recommended guidelines). He had to leave the room and ask his supervisor how the decision should be worded for the record because he had never made such a recommendation before.

He then complimented Djate for having done a good job. The client was eternally grateful and pleased with the representation Djate provided.

Green and Nave Win Parole for Deserving Clients

Karen Green, 3L, represented a client before the toughest hearing examiner (yes, her case was assigned to the same examiner who heard Djate's case). The parole officer alleged that the client failed to report for parole supervision but Green produced documents that the client was not given any reporting instructions, presented the client's mother as a witness, and convinced the hearing examiner to make a recommendation that the client be released in February. This was a recommendation below the guidelines since the client was facing an additional 12 months in prison.

Brandi Nave, 3L, represented a client also alleged to have failed to report for supervision. The parole officer requested a summons three weeks after the client was released. Nave investigated the case and presented documentation to show that, while the client did not go to see his parole officer, he did report to submit urine samples on a regular basis (in the same building). Because the client has mental health issues and did not understand his reporting instructions, Nave argued that "his actions were not indicative of someone who was trying to evade his responsibilities." At the conclusion of the hearing, the examiner made a no finding on the allegation (equivalent to a not guilty) and closed the client's parole case. This means that the client will be released next week and will not have to report for parole supervision.