Justices Consider Bid to Cut Back Some Parole Hearings

The Supreme Court on Monday considered the case of a double murderer from Los Angeles in deciding whether states may revoke annual parole hearings for long-term inmates.

In a series of laws passed since 1981, California lawmakers have reduced the frequency of required parole hearings from annually to every three years and, beginning Jan. 1, to every five years for convicted murderers.

Families of murder victims had complained about the ordeal of undergoing an annual ritual of rehashing the crime.

But last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was unconstitutional to revoke the parole hearings retroactively for inmates sentenced before 1981 because doing so amounts to adding a punishment after the fact.

Lawyers for 24 states have joined California in appealing that conclusion to the Supreme Court. They say they fear that the ruling, if upheld, could crimp a series of laws intended to limit parole.

During Monday’s oral arguments, California Deputy Atty. Gen. James Ching characterized the new California law as a “procedural rule” that does not cause “substantial harm” to inmates.

Ching’s argument could prove effective in the case that reached the high court. Jose Ramon Morales, 54, a double murderer, has no chance of being paroled soon, state officials said.

In 1971, Morales was convicted of beating his girlfriend to death and cutting off her thumb. Nine years later, he was paroled. A 75-year-old widow who had married Morales when he was behind bars came to live with him on July 4, 1980. Three days later, her hand was found on the Hollywood Freeway.

When her family reported her missing, Morales was arrested. He pleaded no contest to murder charges and was sentenced to 15 years to life for the second murder.

During Monday’s arguments, the justices sounded as though they were closely divided on the outcome.