N.J. Supreme Court halts parole for trooper's killer
The New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to grant parole to a 79-year-old man convicted in the 1973 murder of a state trooper, ruling that a lower court erred in endorsing his release without a full review by the state Parole Board.
The New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to grant parole to a 79-year-old man convicted in the 1973 murder of a state trooper, ruling that a lower court erred in endorsing his release without a full review by the state Parole Board.
In a 4-1 decision, the high court reversed an Appellate Division ruling and ordered the Parole Board to conduct a full hearing to determine Sundiata Acoli's suitability for release.
The court did not offer an opinion on his suitability, but handed down a narrow ruling on procedural grounds.
Acoli, formerly known as Clark Edward Squire, is serving a life sentence for his role in the murder of Trooper Werner Foerster and assault on Trooper James Harper.
Authorities say Acoli, joined by fellow Black Liberation Army member Joanne Chesimard, fatally shot Foerster after a traffic stop along the New Jersey Turnpike.
Chesimard, now known as Assata Shakur and said to be step-aunt and godmother to the late rapper Tupac Shakur, escaped from a women's correctional facility and turned up in Cuba in the 1980s, where she remains. The FBI put her on its Most Wanted Terrorists list in 2013.
New Jersey officials, including Gov. Christie, renewed a push to extradite Chesimard when President Obama in 2014 began to normalize relations with Cuba.
Acoli most recently petitioned for parole in 2010. A two-person panel of the Parole Board - whose 15 members are appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate - interviewed Acoli and determined that "a substantial likelihood exists that [Acoli] would commit a new crime if released on parole at this time."
A different, three-member panel then said Acoli could reapply for parole in 10 years. The full board reviewed the record and, without taking testimony, approved the decision to deny parole.
Acoli appealed, and the Appellate Division said the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The division ordered the board to "expeditiously set conditions for [Acoli's] parole," according to court records.
The Parole Board asked the Appellate Division to return the case to the board for a full hearing, during which it could take testimony from Acoli and the victim's family.
But the division "saw no point to that step," Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote for the majority Tuesday, "having itself evaluated Acoli's bases for asserting that he is ready for release and determining that there has been no convincing reason presented to date to require his further incarceration."
"That remedy basically substituted the appellate panel's judgment for that of the agency charged with the expertise to make such highly predictive, individualistic determinations - the full Parole Board," LaVecchia wrote. "We are reluctant to agree with the appellate panel that such a determination should have been made without having allowed the completion of all steps that the Legislature deemed necessary in the deliberation on paroling a convicted murderer."
LaVecchia also pointed to the Legislature's 1993 amendment to the Parole Act, which reads: "The board shall notify the victim's family of that hearing, and family members shall be afforded the opportunity to testify in person or to submit written statements."
Under the Appellate Division's ruling, "that language would be substantially neutered, if not rendered meaningless," LaVecchia wrote.
The board didn't initially undertake a full review of the case, a decision the high court said was appropriate. Instead of wasting the board's resources, it was "reasonable" to focus on Acoli's "reasons for criticizing the two-member panel's record and decision, and have that limited review be subject to judicial review before the board is required to conduct a resource-intensive full hearing."
Acoli and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, which submitted briefs supporting him, pointed to a 1989 amendment to the Parole Act, which, they said, showed a full hearing of the Parole Board is required only when a two-member panel recommends parole to a convicted murderer.
Since that didn't happen in this case, Acoli and the ACLU argued, full review wasn't necessary.
The high court rejected that argument, saying it was inconsistent with the intent of the law.
Justices Anne Patterson and Lee Solomon, as well as temporary Judge Mary Catherine Cuff, joined LaVecchia in her opinion. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina did not participate.
In a dissent, Justice Barry T. Albin said the "majority's strained and unreasonable interpretation of our law will keep Acoli in prison for more hearings and more appeals - without in any way altering the Appellate Division's unchallenged legal conclusion that Acoli poses no danger to the public."
"Acoli committed the most heinous crime: the murder of a law enforcement officer - a crime, which, if committed today, would result in a life sentence without parole eligibility," Albin wrote. "But even the most despised inmate is entitled to the protection and enforcement of the law. . . . That is a lesson, sadly, forgotten today."
856-779-3846
@AndrewSeidman