RICHMOND, Va. The Virginia Parole Board and its former chairperson violated state law and its own policies and procedures in granting the release of a man convicted decades ago of killing a Richmond police officer, according to a report from the state’s government watchdog agency that was initially withheld from the public.
Republican legislative leaders on Thursday released an unredacted version of the six-page report from the Office of the State Inspector General about its investigation into the release of Vincent Martin. The disclosure came a week after the inspector generals office provided a version of the report to the media that was almost entirely redacted apart from making clear that at least some allegations against the parole board had been substantiated.
According to the report, the inspector general’s office found that the board did not initially provide notification of Martin’s release to the Richmond commonwealths attorney within the required time frame, did not endeavor diligently as required by law to contact the slain officer’s family before making the decision to release Martin, and did not allow the victims family or other interested parties to meet with the board in accordance with the board’s own policies and procedures.
The report said the boards former chair, Adrianne Bennett, was reluctant to contact the family of slain Officer Michael Connors at all.
The Parole Report prepared by the Victim Services Coordinator noted that Bennett stated she had been working on this case for four years and the familys input was the last piece of the puzzle and the Board was reluctant to reach out, but is required by law, according to the report.
Several Parole Board employees told the inspector general’s office that state law and board policies and procedures regarding victim notification were not always followed under Bennetts tenure as Chair, the report said.
The employees stated that Bennett was vocal about not wanting to contact victims and particularly not in the (Martin) case due to the expectation of opposition because the victim was a police officer, it said.
The report found that despite the fact that Martin, who was referred by his initials, first became eligible for parole in 1994 and received annual parole reviews, Connors’ family had never been contacted for input before this year.
The board declined to hear input from a co-defendant of Martin’s who had concerns with his release, as well as an alleged prior shooting victim of Martin’s, according to the report.
The Associated Press sent a request for comment to the Parole Board’s chair, Tonya Chapman. Chapman previously said in a statement that the findings of the report were based on are based on factual inaccuracies, a misunderstanding of the Parole Boards procedures, and incorrect interpretations of the Virginia State Code.
The AP also sent a request for comment to Bennett, who is now a judge in Virginia Beach.
The redactions in the initial report sparked an outcry from Republican lawmakers and law enforcement advocacy groups who called for all the findings to be made public. Gov. Ralph Northam’s administration declined requests from AP for a full copy of the report.
Beyond the Martin case, the board has recently come under criticism from prosecutors, victims’ families and members of law enforcement for the types of offenders who were granted parole and allegations that proper notification was not provided under state law.
Top GOP lawmakers called for Northam to issue a moratorium on the release of certain inmates by the board, which the Democratic governor flatly rejected.
The release of Martin, who has previously declined a request to speak with AP, drew particular attention and condemnation from law enforcement groups.
Virginia lawmakers abolished discretionary parole in 1995, so only a small number of the state’s inmates are eligible. Most either committed their crimes before then and are therefore serving lengthy sentences for serious crimes or are older than 60 and meet certain conditions making them eligible for geriatric release.
The board is largely exempt from Virginias public records law, does not conduct its decision-making in public and does not explain its reasoning for granting releases.
The copy of the report provided to lawmakers asked them not to disseminate it to preserve the integrity of the investigation.
It was not immediately clear if the agency, which has a policy of not commenting on potential or pending investigations, is investigating other decisions.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor