The Virginia Parole Board violated state law and its policies and procedures when it released a man from prison who was convicted of murdering a police officer, a report from the Office of the State Inspector General said.
The report was released to the media Thursday by Republican lawmakers. In response, VPB released a letter it sent to the OSIG regarding the accusations.
Recommended Stories
Republican lawmakers in both chambers have urged every member of the board to resign and have asked Gov. Ralph Northam to fire any member who refuses to do so.
The man who was released from prison, Vincent Martin, was convicted of killing Richmond officer Michael Connors in 1979. He initially was sentenced to death, but his sentence was reduced to life in prison after an appeal and retrial. He was granted parole April 9 and released from prison June 10.
When considering Martin’s release from prison, the parole board failed to “endeavor diligently” to contact the victim’s family before making the decision, in violation of Virginia law, according to the report. In violation of VPB’s policies, the board gave the family only 21 days to provide input when it is supposed to be given 50 days, failed to attend the first scheduled call with the family and refused to allow the family to meet with VPB in person, the report said. VPB eventually did meet with the family via a phone call.
According to employees cited in the report, former board Chairman Adrianne Bennett was vocal about not wanting to contact victims or families of victims during reviews, especially in the review of Martin, because they would provide arguments against the prisoner’s release. One employee claimed Bennett said no further victim notification was needed if the victim was dead, despite the legal definition of victim including members of the victim’s immediate family and other interested parties.
Bennett denied a request from a paroled co-defendant of Martin’s to provide commentary against Martin’s release, claiming he was not credible, but did include favorable testimony for Martin from other parolees and current inmates. An alleged prior shooting victim of Martin also was denied a request to testify because he never was convicted of that crime, but the report said the alleged victim fell under the procedural rule to allow interested parties to testify.
The report also found that Bennett violated the law by not keeping minutes of meetings. There are no meeting records of any VPB meetings between October 2019 and March 2020, the report said.
The board also failed to provide timely notification to the Richmond commonwealth’s attorney, in violation of state law, the report found.
According to the report, many of these problems were not unique to the Martin case, but rather consistent practices by VPB under Bennett’s leadership.
“The degree to which the law was violated here is shocking to the core,” House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said Thursday during a news conference.
Gilbert said the parole board went out of its way to facilitate Martin’s release and ignore unfavorable testimony, which is “shameful at best and blatantly illegal at worst.”
Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, said the board has a commitment to a political agenda in favor of inmates and against the interest of victims, which “has made Virginia and Virginians less safe.”
“This disregard shown by the Virginia Parole Board … is shocking,” Obenshain said. “It’s disgusting, and it must not be allowed to continue.”
In a written response to OSIG, the board questioned the specific meaning to “endeavor diligently” to contact victims and family of the victims and requested input on that definition, but it also said OSIG’s conclusions were based on faulty assumptions, incorrect facts and a misunderstanding of procedures and laws.
VPB said it was not required to provide the victim’s family with 50 days to respond because the family did not request to be notified and was not registered in the Victim Information Notification Everyday system before March 13. Even if it were applicable, VPB said it does not need to wait 50 days if the input was received in advance.
According to its response, VPB also said it was not required to meet with the co-defendant or the alleged victim from an alleged crime for which Martin was not convicted. VPB also said it gave proper notification to the Richmond commonwealth’s attorney because it postponed the date of the release to ensure it complied with Virginia law.
The response did not comment on the board’s failure to keep records of the minutes, nor did it respond to accusations about comments made by Bennett.
Northam’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
