News

 By Andrea Jones

As prisoners in California entered the tenth day of statewide hunger strikes staged in opposition to the long-term solitary confinement policies of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), news broke that administrators were countering activism with reprisal.

Confined for up to twenty-three hours per day in cramped, windowless cells called Security Housing Units (SHUs) at Pelican Bay State Prison, the inmates who initiated the protests—which spread to include 30,000 prisoners across two-thirds of state facilities—did so as a plea to abolish indefinite isolation. Although the enduring psychological harm of solitary confinement is well established—the U.N. has called for the prohibition of the practice in excess of fifteen days—many of California’s prisoners have been stuck in solitary for decades.

Rather than consider the demands presented, CDCR cut off access to broadcast news and confiscated some of the legal papers of fourteen Pelican Bay participants, forcing them into administrative segregation—an even more punitive form of isolation, according to a statement from the prisoners.

“Despite this diabolical act on the part of CDCR intended to break our resolve and hasten our deaths,” the statement read, “we remain strong and united! We are 100% committed to our cause and will end our peaceful action when CDCR signs a legally binding agreement meeting our demands.”

Eminently reasonable, these demands include: adequate food for SHU inmates; educational and rehabilitative programming; one phone call per week; and the elimination of “debriefing,” a policy that poses severe safety risks by making release from solitary contingent upon informing on other inmates. “Hunger strikes are the last option for prisoners,” explains Shane Bauer, the journalist whose traumatic confinement in Iran in 2009 compelled him to investigate conditions at Pelican Bay last year. With administrative and legal attempts proving futile, prisoners are risking their health as a final resort.

By Katherine White

Christopher Zoukis is a prisoners’ rights advocate, and the author of Education Behind Bars: A Win-Win Strategy for Maximum Security (Sunbury Press, 2012).  While incarcerated, Mr. Zoukis spends his time writing books, articles, blog posts, and school papers (he’s pursuing a degree in Business Administration).  He also spends much of his time either in his prison’s law library or out and about consulting with those he assists with legal pleadings.

Prison Law Blog’s Katherine White interviewed him regarding his own prison experiences and the challenges he has faced as an impassioned prisoners’ rights activist and prison writer.

Katherine White: Why did you decide to use your time in prison to fight for the rights of other prisoners?  That is, wouldn’t it be easier if you just did your time, as they say, and concentrated on your writing?

Christopher Zoukis: When I came to prison, it was a great shock to me to see how few prisoners were able to speak for themselves or assert their rights.  To add to this, I was stunned at how often prison administrators seemed to just do as they pleased, even if their actions violated the law, or were clearly unconstitutional.  I was despondent about such actions and felt that it would be up to me to protect myself.  Legal study was the path I chose.  And I used this legal study, prompted by witnessing the existing abuses, to motivate myself to help my fellow prisoners.

Approved and Edited by Craig M. Coscarelli

Preliminary Statement:

Since the June 17, 2013 release of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) by the Supreme Court of the United States, there has been much discussion about the differences between

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000) and Alleyne. Of course, the main discussion centers around retroactivity. I believe that the excellent work and research done by Tommy Walker and his law students below dispels any doubt that Alleyne is retroactive.

Introduction:

The Sixth Amendment provides that those “accused” of a “crime” have the right to a trial “by an impartial jury.” This right, in conjunction with Due Process, requires that each element of a crime be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). The substance and scope of this right depend upon the proper designation of the facts that are elements of the crime.

In Alleyne , the Supreme Court dropped a big bombshell on state and federal sentencing regimes. By holding, that any facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed are elements of the crime. This is an important decision that has been a long time coming.

By Prison Legal News

ON April 11, 2013, the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) announced that Corrections Corporation of America, the nation’s largest for-profit prison firm, had acknowledged that employees at the CCA-operated Idaho Correctional Center (ICC) falsified staffing records from at least May through November 2012. As a result, the state paid the company for almost 4,800 staffing hours for vacant positions during that time period.

According to a review of ICC shift logs obtained by the Associated Press, some CCA employees were falsely listed as having worked 24, 36 and even 48 continuous hours.

In January 2013, attorneys for prisoners housed at the ICC filed an amended complaint in federal court that alleged CCA officials had falsified staffing records to conceal chronic understaffing. The prisoners claimed that fewer employees were on duty at the time of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults than the number reflected on shift logs. The lawsuit also contends that CCA staff collaborated with ICC gang members in order to maintain control at the facility. See: Castillon v. CCA, U.S.D.C. (D. Idaho), Case No. 1:12-cv-00559-EJL.

“[E]mployees were being placed on the shift schedule who were not present within the building or who were actually working in other areas and in some cases were no longer employees of CCA,” stated T.J. Angstman, one of the attorneys representing the prisoners. “This was being done to fraudulently show the State of Idaho that ICC was fully staffed when in fact it was not and to hide culpability for the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs.”

The Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Danbury is a low-security US federal prison in southwestern Connecticut. When it first opened in 1940, it was used to house male inmates. Since 1993, it has been housing only female prisoners, but that’s about to change. By December 2013, all the female inmates will be shipped to other

On April 26, 2013, David Lee Kemp, 43, turned himself into the Comanche County, Oklahoma Sheriff’s Office. He was actively being sought by the FBI, U.S. Marshals, and other law enforcement agencies for escaping from the Comanche County Jail 14 years earlier. “He said that he was just tired basically of running and it was

By Prison Legal News

In February 2013, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued its second ruling in a long-running lawsuit filed under the state’s Public Records Act against Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the nation’s largest for-profit private prison company. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the lower court, holding that CCA must produce documents that it had refused to disclose, plus pay attorney fees and costs.

The suit was filed by PLN managing editor Alex Friedmann. In 2007, CCA had denied Friedmann’s request for records related to litigation filed against CCA and for reports or audits that found contract violations by the company, among other documents. The Chancery Court ruled in Friedmann’s favor on July 29, 2008, finding that CCA was the functional equivalent of a government agency and ordering the company to produce the requested records. [See: PLN, Oct. 2008, p.24].

CCA appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed in September 2009, noting, “With all due respect to CCA, this Court is at a loss as to how operating a prison could be considered anything less than a governmental function.” The appellate court narrowed the lower court’s ruling by exempting one CCA-run Tennessee prison (the South Central Correctional Center), finding that it fell under a different state statute. The case was then remanded to determine which records CCA would have to disclose. See: Friedmann v. CCA, 310 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2009), review denied.

Following remand, CCA produced a number of the requested records, including hundreds of pages from reports and audits in which the company had been found in violation of or non-compliance with its contractual obligations to operate prisons and jails in Tennessee. However, CCA refused to produce copies of settlement agreements, verdicts or releases in cases where it had paid monetary damages to resolve lawsuits or claims. CCA also refused to release database printouts listing such settlements.

The plot thickens. Last weekend I was called to the FCI Petersburg Visitation Room to visit with my Prisoner Visitation & Support (PVS) visitor, a woman who’s also a Christian minister.  On my way through the initial search area, I was harassed by the prison guard (“Guard #1”) assigned to the Visitation Room because my

For the third time in the past eight years, Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel has been sued for damages by a local hospital, which accuses him of releasing dozens of jail prisoners to avoid having to pay their medical bills. Prior lawsuits involving Whetsel’s handling of detainee medical costs have resulted in county officials paying

By Craig M. Coscarelli

WHAT’S IT ABOUT?

The Descamps decision gives guidance on the correct application of the Modified Categorical Approach (“MCA”) to determine whether a state prior conviction for burglary really was a burglary under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”).  The Court explained that the MCA could only be applied to a statute if that statute was divisible, or contained alternative language outside the generic definition of the crime.  If the statute is not divisible, then it stands as is, but if the definition is not the same as or narrower than the “Generic” definition of the crime, the prior conviction does not count under the ACCA.

BACKGROUND:

Precedent ACCA cases, such as Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), as well as other ACCA cases over the past quarter-century, show there is obviously a problem with the ACCA.  Descamps is yet another effort by the Court to give guidance to the lower courts.

In Taylor, the Court established the methodology to determine whether a prior state conviction for burglary actually was burglary under the ACCA.  The Court first defined burglary as: “an unlawful or unprivileged entry or remaining in a structure or building with the intent to commit a crime.” Id.  The Court then instituted the “Categorical Approach,” which is to simply look at the language of the state statute of conviction to see if the defendant was convicted of generic burglary.  But, since most state statutes for burglary have language in addition to the generic definition to cover a broader range of crimes, the Court authorized a modified version of the Categorical Approach and called it the “MCA.” Id.  Under this MCA, the sentencing court could look at the conduct for which the defendant was convicted if the state statute contained alternative language outside the definition of generic burglary.  And herein lays the problem. Id.