Inmate Says Parole Board Is Biased

Winning a parole date is no easy feat for California murderers. Linda Ricchio, serving 27 years to life for killing her former lover, figures her odds of release are slim to none.

She blames her uphill battle on the identity of her 1987 victim, Ronald Ruse. Ruse’s sister, Susan Fisher, sits on the state Board of Prison Terms -- the very board scheduled to decide this week whether Ricchio is rehabilitated and deserves a second chance.

Ricchio says that’s unfair, and wants her bid for parole heard in Superior Court. For five years, she notes, Fisher was director of a major crime victims group now lobbying against the inmate’s release.

The legal challenge comes as Fisher -- appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last February -- prepares for her confirmation hearing in the Senate at the end of this month.

It also reflects a concern voiced by inmate advocates since Fisher’s selection: Can a leading figure in the crime victims movement be impartial in judging those who have committed the gravest crime of all?

“Often, I think people in victims’ rights organizations tend to make judgments based on a particular offense, rather than assessing each case on its individual merits as the law requires,” said Donald Specter of the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit firm that monitors conditions for inmates. “That’s the concern.”

Fisher, 51, declined to be interviewed. She will not sit on the panel assigned to consider parole for Ricchio, but the inmate fears that Fisher’s colleagues will be influenced nonetheless.

A spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger said the governor had no qualms about whether his appointee can be fair.

“She has already granted parole [to other inmates], so she has shown through her actions a willingness to consider these cases on a case-by-case basis,” press secretary Margita Thompson said. “The governor, in making such appointments, always receives assurances that the person can be impartial and fulfill the mission of the board.”

A Republican from Oceanside, Fisher is the second of Schwarzenegger’s three parole board appointees to stir controversy. The first, Richard Loa, stepped down in August amid warnings from Senate leaders that he would not win confirmation. Loa, a Palmdale city councilman, drew sharp complaints for his questioning of prisoners during board hearings.

The third appointee is Chairwoman Margarita Perez, a Democrat from Cameron Park. Though initially criticized for a lack of experience, Perez is expected to be confirmed when she appears with Fisher before the Senate Rules Committee on Jan. 26.

Commissioners on the nine-member board, which evaluates serious offenders whose sentences make them eligible for release, are paid $99,693 a year; the chairwoman earns $103,317.

Fisher is not the first parole board member related to a crime victim, but her leadership on behalf of victims makes her the most prominent. In the 1990s, the board had two commissioners -- John Gillis and Steven Baker -- who had lost a child to murder. Both men were members of Parents of Murdered Children, a board spokesman said.

A news release on Fisher’s appointment said she had been director of the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau since 1999, and a member of that group’s board for seven years. She also belonged to two other victims groups and, since 2000, was president of Citizens for Law and Order.

Articulate and poised, she often spoke at legislative hearings before her appointment, and was routinely quoted in media reports on everything from the death penalty to a prison smoking ban. In 2002, she testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, recounting her brother’s murder as she lobbied for a bill to prevent the release of personal information.

That activism triggered alarm among inmate advocates when she was named to the parole board. They questioned whether someone with a deep personal loss and strong connections to other victims could keep an open mind when deciding whether incarcerated murderers and kidnappers had changed their ways.

Critics also argued that if the governor named someone aligned with victims, he also should add a member familiar with the concerns of prisoners. The other commissioners have backgrounds in law enforcement.

Ricchio’s lawyer shares those concerns, and has filed legal papers seeking to move his client’s parole hearing to Superior Court. Although Fisher is not one of two board members assigned to judge Ricchio’s readiness for release at a hearing Tuesday, her presence on the larger board amounts to “a serious conflict of interest that works against my client,” attorney Rich Pfeiffer said.

In his motion, Pfeiffer said “it is reasonable to infer” that Fisher has shared her feelings about the case with co-workers, arguing that blocking his client’s release “has apparently become a mission for the commissioner.”

He notes that the website for the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, the group Fisher formerly led, features a lengthy summary of Ricchio’s crime that urges members to write the parole board and demand that she be kept behind bars. Although it is not signed, the letter appears to have been written by a relative of the victim. It closes with: “We loved him very much and we miss him every day. We feel his absence in everything we do as a family.”

Tuesday will mark Ricchio’s first parole hearing since her conviction 15 years ago. Though her prison record is good, inmates are almost never granted a release date at their initial board appearance. In a telephone interview, Ricchio said that all she wants is a fair hearing.

“I just don’t believe the board can be impartial with Susan Fisher’s presence,” said Ricchio, 44. “The best result for everyone would be to move the hearing to Superior Court.”

Parole board officials so far disagree. In a letter to the inmate’s lawyer, board attorney Deborah Bain said “there is no evidence that Ms. Fisher has previously advocated her position” on the Ricchio case, and no evidence that the board “will not discharge its duties in ... a fair manner.”

Fisher no longer serves as an officer for any victims group, board officials said, and her voting pattern is similar to those of other members. Out of 455 hearings, she voted to grant parole in about 7% of the cases, slightly below the board average of 8% for 2004.

“If Miss Fisher were assigned to this case, then clearly that would be a conflict,” said Tip Kindel, communications director for the board. “But to suggest that her relationship to the victim influences the board as a whole is a real stretch.”

Fisher does not plan to attend Ricchio’s hearing, though she has a legal right to do so as the victim’s next of kin. Her parents and three sisters, however, say they will be there. One of them, Laurie Mallon of Escondido, said the family is approaching the hearing with a sense of dread, revisiting memories they would rather forget.

“Even though 17 years have gone by, we feel the same as we felt then,” said Mallon, a bank loan officer. “The pain she caused my brother is forever. The pain she caused our family is forever. Where is the equity in discussing whether Linda should get out now?”

Mallon said that in her view, Ricchio should never be released. No matter how well she performs in prison, Mallon said, “no matter how many Bible study classes she attends, we believe she is a violent person who really hasn’t taken responsibility for what she’s done.”

Ricchio shot and killed Ruse, an auto mechanic, on Dec. 14, 1987, outside his Carlsbad apartment. The crime was called the “fatal attraction” killing -- a reference to the movie released that year starring Glenn Close and Michael Douglas -- because of trial testimony that she was obsessed with Ruse and unwilling to let their eight-year relationship end.

Ricchio gave a different account, saying she had planned to commit suicide in front of Ruse but shot him accidentally. A jury convicted her of first-degree murder, and a state appeals court upheld the verdict.

After 15 years at the California Institution for Women in Chino, Ricchio said she is ready for parole. “I don’t minimize my responsibility for Ron’s death, and his death will live within me each and every day, whether I’m incarcerated or not,” she said. “But I also believe I have served my time. I am not a threat to the victim’s family or society.”