Special to IFN
Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ) has reached a settlement with the N.C. Parole Commission that will lead to changes in how the commission conducts parole reviews for individuals who were sentenced to North Carolina prison as juveniles.
The settlement resolves Abrams v. Jackson, a federal lawsuit brought on behalf of Brett Abrams, who has been incarcerated for more than 42 years for a crime he committed in Iredell County at age 14. Prosecuted as an adult for the brutal stabbing death of 20-year-old Mooresville resident Kim Goodman in 1983, Abrams pleaded guilty to second-degree murder on May 22, 1984, and was sentenced to life in prison.
Goodman’s family has lead numerous successful efforts over the years to oppose Abrams’ bids for parole. They contend that Abrams represents a continuing threat to the public. “We don’t want another family to go through what we did,” Kim’s mother, Peggy Goodman-Riley, said in a 2020 interview with Iredell Free News.
Darren Jackson, the chairman of the N.C. Parole Commission, signed the agreement on Tuesday.
Under the legal settlement, the Parole Commission will adopt new procedures for Abrams’ case and for all similarly situated individuals — those who were children at the time of their offense and who are now eligible for parole under North Carolina law. These reforms are intended to ensure people like Abrams have a meaningful opportunity to obtain parole based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. (Read the agreement here.)
According to the SCSJ, the lawsuit, which Abrams originally filed on his own behalf, revealed several glaring problems with the existing parole review process. In an earlier court order, U.S. District Judge Richard E. Myers II wrote that “worryingly, incorrect information was included” in Abrams’ parole reviews, and that “relevant information was excluded that commissioners testified would have been relevant to their decision regarding parole.”
In its filings on behalf of Abrams, SCSJ argued that the existing parole process — lacking adequate safeguards to protect against serious risks of error and permitting material misrepresentations and omissions to undermine the integrity of the Parole Commission’s ultimate decisions — violated the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
By law, the federal court cannot order the North Carolina Parole Commission to grant parole to Abrams or any other individual. No matter how flawed the review process or how deserving a particular person may be, the only relief to be secured from Abrams’ lawsuit would be changes to the process itself.
In 2017, for example, Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the Eastern District of North Carolina ordered the Parole Commission in Hayden v. Keller to adopt significant changes to its review of “juvenile offender” cases after finding the then-existing process violated the Eighth Amendment.
The settlement agreement does not guarantee Abrams’ immediate release. The Parole Commission, however, has agreed to implement new procedures aimed at ensuring Abrams and others like him receive a constitutionally adequate review.
“This settlement is an important step forward for Brett Abrams and others who are trying in good faith to demonstrate their readiness to safely return to their loved ones,” said Jake Sussman, chief counsel for Justice System Reform at SCSJ. “To be clear, these changes are necessary but not sufficient for a system that needs further repair and reform, although they should provide hope that North Carolina’s parole review process will be fairer and more accountable going forward.”
During the decades he’s been incarcerated, Abrams has developed an “unquestionably impressive prison record,” according to the SCSJ. He has spent more than 15 years in minimum custody and on work release.
The settlement agreement addresses a handful of troubling aspects of the parole review process. For example, as discovered during the litigation, the Parole Commission does not have access to a parole-eligible individual’s complete files, including their medical or mental health records from prison. Going forward, the Parole Commission will provide notice and directions to parole-eligible “juvenile offenders” about the need for them to gather that often-critical information.
In addition, the Abrams litigation revealed that summaries provided to Parole commissioners by staff analysts often failed to distinguish what information was fact or opinion — or, in some troubling instances, baseless rumor. These critical summaries, which commissioners rely on due, in part, to very high caseloads, also failed to clearly identify the source of the information. Under the agreement, the Parole Commission staff must clearly identify the sources of the information being summarized for the Parole commissioners.