In an unusual move, Eroy Brown’s parole lawyer, Bill Habern has asked the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole to change the membership of Brown’s parole panel. The board had appointed a former Texas warden and a former correctional officer to hear Brown’s case for parole after serving more than 25 years for a convenience store robbery in 1985. Brown maintains that the real reason he has been denied parole is because he was acquitted of killing two prison officials in 1981 by reason of self defense. Austin American Statesman reporter Mike Ward published a story this morning:
Paroles are approved or denied by voting panels of three members each. The panel considering Brown’s case includes two former Texas corrections employees, including a retired warden.
After the Wednesday story was published, the Statesman received several calls from current and former prison employees criticizing the coverage and Brown’s bid for early release. Habern said the criticism underscores his concern about a continuing animus against Brown inside the prison system, even though most employees at the time of the deaths are long gone.
“The Texas prison system has long refused to accept the fact Mr. Brown has been found not guilty by 35 out of 36 jury panel members during the highly publicized trials and re-trials related to the deceased prison employees,” Habern said in his letter to Owens.
“The closer the past relationship of the voting panel members to employees of the agency, the more hesitant they could be to consider all available options when voting Mr. Brown’s case.”
Habern made the text of his letter public. It said, in part:
…we do not object to any other persons who vote parole cases so long as such persons do not have prior TDCJ employment experience nor are currently married to someone who has or had prior employment experience with the TDCJ umbrella entities. We are acutely aware that those selected to make up the Brown Panel face the potential of extremely negative reactions from their old friends and social contacts who are employees of the Texas prison system, especially if they were to vote in a favorable manner. The closer the past relationship of the voting panel members to employees of the agency, the more hesitant they could be to consider all available options when voting Mr. Brown’s case. For panel members to seriously give favorable consideration to Mr. Brown’s potential parole, and if parole were granted, the voters will have to continue to socialize and/or professionally interact with these TDCJ employees who, as we have seen even today in the wake of the Austin article, continue to express serious bias and prejudice against Mr. Brown. Such an element incorporated into the mix of considerations when voting a case would result in an unfairness we would hope that the Board of Pardons and Paroles would wish to avoid.
.
