Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Prince was appointed to the Pardon and Parole Board in January 2023. "Mr. Prince will be a steward of justice for the people of Oklahoma," Gov. Kevin Stitt said in making the appointment.
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case that provided for a hearing, before a "neutral and detached" hearing body such as a parole board, to determine the factual basis for parole violations. This hearing is colloquially known as a "Morrissey hearing."
Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when state law requires the state to grant parole whenever a prisoner satisfies certain conditions, due process requires the state to allow the prisoner to present evidence in support of his request for parole and to furnish a written ...
The Legislature in 2023 rescinded the statute requiring at least one member of each Parole Board decision panel to be a permanent member. William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register.
The case against Boose stemmed from allegations that he had sexual intercourse with the 14-year-old girl in the back of an Erie Rise school bus on Dec. 14, 2022. Boose was the driver of the bus.
New Jersey State Parole Board; New Mexico Parole Board [12] New York State Division of Parole; Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board; Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole; Rhode Island Parole Board [13] South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services; Tennessee Board of Parole; Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles; Utah Board ...
The Idaho federal judge presiding over that case was forced by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to recuse herself after declining to do so based on her decades-long friendship with Bennetts.
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal's ruling that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.