John said we must free Ruchell McGee! And I agree. I suggest when Kanye West meets with your President Trump tomorrow, he suggest giving a general amnesty to all incarcerated in American prisons. John was paroled in July, 2018. He's wearing an ankle monitor and getting adjusted to the cell phone. Marvin told him, "Just stop any five year old and they will tell you how to use it. Just be ready for them to call you stupid and dummy." When John tried to give a donation for a collection of Marvin's books, the poet refused to take the money.
--Marvin X
10/10/18
‘Soledad Brother’ John Clutchette granted parole – will California Gov. Jerry Brown reverse the decision?
January 19, 2018
John Clutchette in the 1980s
An interview with law professor Angela A. Allen-Bell
by Angola 3 News
On Jan. 12, 2018, the California Board of Parole Hearings granted parole to an elderly inmate named John Clutchette. However, supporters of parole for Clutchette are concerned that California Gov. Jerry Brown will reverse the board’s decision and Clutchette will not be released.
Supporters have a reason to be concerned. After all, this is exactly what happened in 2016 when Clutchette was similarly granted parole by the board, but Gov. Brown chose to reverse the board’s ruling.
Legal scholar Angela A. Allen-Bell, a professor at Southern University Law Center, and students in her “Law and Minorities” class began researching Clutchette’s legal battle over a year ago. Following extensive research, they have concluded that “the law has been used to perpetuate an injustice in Mr. Clutchette’s case.”
Why did Gov. Brown deny parole to 74-year-old John Clutchette? In our interview with Professor Bell, she refers to Brown’s written explanation for his 2016 parole reversal, where Brown cites the fact that in the early 1970s, Clutchette was one of a trio of inmates at California’s Soledad Prison, who became high profile co-defendants known as the “Soledad Brothers.”
Since Clutchette was ultimately acquitted of all charges in the Soledad Brothers case, Professor Bell argues that it is problematic for Gov. Brown to use this as his reason for reversing the Parole Board. In our interview, Bell further contextualizes Brown’s reference to the Soledad Brothers and identifies other troubling aspects of the case.
Professor Bell concludes with a call to action, urging readers to contact California Gov. Jerry Brown and express their support for the California Board of Parole Hearings Jan. 12, 2018, decision granting parole to John Clutchette.
Professor Bell concludes with a call to action, urging readers to contact California Gov. Jerry Brown and express their support for the California Board of Parole Hearings Jan. 12, 2018, decision granting parole to John Clutchette.
Angola 3 News: Can you tell us about the work you and your students have done researching the case of “Soledad Brother” John Clutchette?
Angela A. Allen-Bell: In my “Law & Minorities” class, the law students explore the use of law both to perpetuate and eradicate racial injustice in the United States by exploring past and current legal, racial and social justice challenges involving minorities, indigenous peoples and others in vulnerable situations. Once such a challenge is identified, the students conduct investigative research. Restorative justice principles are then employed.
A year ago, when we began our work on the case of Soledad Brother John Clutchette, we knew only that he was in custody and that he had some historical connection to the late George Jackson. The four law students who worked on this case sifted through volumes of dated Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents, numerous era-related court cases, news stories, books and interviews. They also conducted their own interviews.
These collective efforts led us to conclude that the law has been used to perpetuate an injustice in Mr. Clutchette’s case. In conjunction with this conclusion and, as a restorative justice measure, we filed a complaint to the United Nations through its Special Procedures Division.
A3N: Last week, on Jan. 12, 2018, the California Board of Parole Hearings granted parole to Mr. Clutchette, but before he is actually released on parole, this ruling will now have to be affirmed by California Gov. Jerry Brown. In the past, Gov. Brown has rejected parole for Mr. Clutchette. On what grounds did he make this decision?
AB: On Nov. 4, 2016, California Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. reversed the 2016 California Board of Parole Hearings decision that had granted parole to John Clutchette. Gov. Brown reasoned:
A photo of the Soledad Brothers, with John Clutchette on the left, was incorporated into this 1970 poster.
“He [Clutchette] has told the Board many times that he was not and had never been a member of the Black Guerilla Family … Mr. Clutchette has been identified as a high-ranking and revered member of the gang since the 1970s and as recently as 2008.
“Although he was acquitted of the murder of a correctional officer in 1970, he later admitted to fellow inmates that he had knocked the officer unconscious before George Jackson killed him. The pair, along with Fleeta Drumgo, became known as the ‘Soledad Brothers,’ and made national news when Mr. Jackson’s brother made a failed attempt to take the judge, a deputy district attorney, and jurors hostage …
“While Mr. Clutchette acknowledged that he knew all of the individuals involved at the time and shared the same ‘political ideology,’ he steadfastly denies that he was ever in the [BGF] gang or that he was ever involved in ‘any violence or anything since I’ve been in prison.’ These statements are contradicted by ample evidence in the record …
“While I appreciate that Mr. Clutchette has completed the stepdown program and has now been deemed an inactive gang member, I remain troubled by his version of events. His statements, and the evidence to the contrary, demonstrate that Mr. Clutchette has not acknowledged or come to terms with his key role in these historical events or the magnitude of his actions. …
“I have considered the evidence in the record that is relevant to whether Mr. Clutchette is currently dangerous. When considered as a whole, I find the evidence shows that he currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison.”
To appreciate our conclusions about this being an injustice and a human rights violation, Gov. Brown’s decision must be viewed within the larger context of this case.
From all indicators, John Clutchette was a politically inactive citizen in 1966 when he was convicted of burglary. For that charge, he was supposed to have been released from prison in April 1970. However, instead of seeing freedom, he became a character entangled in a web of racial politics and social struggle on a forgotten page in a discarded history book.
In the late 1960s and the early 1970s, the civil rights era was underway in the United States. Free citizens and inmates alike were demanding civil and human rights.
At this moment in time, J. Edgar Hoover was leading the FBI. Through COINTELPRO, a clandestine intelligence program, Mr. Hoover sought to neutralize many activists, advocacy groups, dissident voices, artists and innocent citizens. His tactics were often unconstitutional and largely illegal.
For over 47 long years, Mr. Hoover declared war on free expression, chilled speech, intimidated and bullied dissenters, meted out private punishments, invaded privacy rights and engaged in discriminatory law enforcement practices. The Black Panther Party (BPP) and the Black Guerilla Family (BGF) were two groups that Mr. Hoover had a particular disdain for. Mr. Hoover’s practices were successfully suppressed from the American public until 1975. The full extent of COINTELPRO harms have yet to be realized all these years removed.
For over 47 long years, Mr. Hoover declared war on free expression, chilled speech, intimidated and bullied dissenters, meted out private punishments, invaded privacy rights and engaged in discriminatory law enforcement practices. The Black Panther Party (BPP) and the Black Guerilla Family (BGF) were two groups that Mr. Hoover had a particular disdain for.
The late George Jackson is another prominent figure in Mr. Clutchette’s story. He was a successful organizer, an activist, the founder of the BGF, a member of the BPP and a respected prison intellectual. In 1970, he released “Soledad Brother,” a book that exposed prison conditions to a captive world audience.
While this endeared legions of inmates and free people to him, this cemented his adversarial relationship with the prison staff and administration. His opposition extended beyond the prison gates. He was a target of Mr. Hoover’s COINTELPRO program.
In the early 1970s, John Clutchette was incarcerated at California Correctional Training Facility at Soledad. He was housed in the “Y” wing on the tier with George Jackson. At the time, there were documented racial problems inside the facility, as well as allegations of excessive force and other abuses on the part of correctional officers.
In this climate, three African American inmates were murdered by a white guard, African American inmate witnesses were not allowed to testify at trial and the officer was not prosecuted. Shortly thereafter, in January 1970, John Mills, a white prison guard was murdered in what some describe as an act of retaliation.
George Jackson, John Clutchette and Fleeta Drumgo were accused of Officer Mills’ murder and subsequently indicted in February 1970. The trio became known as the “Soledad Brothers.” Mr. Clutchette was less than three months away from parole.
Months later, in August 1970, heavily armed, 17-year-old Jonathan Jackson joined this cast of characters. Jonathan, George’s youngest brother, entered the Marin County Courthouse during a trial. Jonathan armed three prisoners before the group left with five hostages, which included the judge and district attorney.
In an effort to stop the escape, officers killed Jonathan, the judge and two of the prisoners. A year later, in August 1971, George was killed by San Quentin prison guards, leaving his associates, however distant, to pay for his sins, both real and imagined.
From all appearances, officials deemed the Soledad Brothers guilty on the day they were arrested and viewed the surrounding legal process as a mere formality – something akin to a pit stop on the way to their final destination toward literal or figurative death in prison. Fate would write another ending for John Clutchette. In February 1972, John Clutchette was acquitted by the all-white jury that presided over his case. He further defied odds when he was granted parole on Nov. 13, 1972.
Significantly, none of the “Soledad Brothers” were found guilty of the murder of Officer Mills. Also noteworthy is the fact that John Clutchette was not charged or convicted in the 1970 Marin County Courthouse matter that was onset by Jonathan Jackson nor was he charged or convicted in the 1971 Adjustment Center incident that resulted in the death of George Jackson.
John Clutchette remained a free man from 1972 until 1980 when he was placed in custody to stand trial for the murder of Robert Bowles. Mr. Bowles’ lifeless body was found in a parked car with two gunshot wounds to the head.
Mr. Clutchette, then a substance abuser and a party to illicit drug operations, testified only to participating in the cover up of the murder. Despite his testimony, he was convicted of first degree murder. An indeterminate sentence of seven years to life was imposed. Two additional years were added for use of a weapon.
Mr. Clutchette presently speaks of this crime with great remorse and sorrow. His moral convictions led him to pen a heartfelt letter to the Bowles family. In that letter, he expressed:
“I … extend[] my deepest apologies and sincere regrets to the entire Bowles family for the devastating and irreparable harm that I have caused with my callous disregard for Robert’s life … I’ll forever live with the shame of my actions … It did not happen overnight …
“I am taking full advantage of the rehabilitative process; in my long journey of self-discovery, I have matured and learned to use my care and concern when I know that my actions have the potential to affect the lives of my fellow man, woman and community … I am on my perpetual road of atonement.”
A3N: Do you know how Gov. Brown arrived at the conclusions that led him to reject the Parole Board’s decision granting Mr. Clutchette parole in 2016?
AB: His written reasons suggest he used subjective, unvetted, unreliable information and inaccuracies from John Clutchette’s prison file. This includes statements from prison snitches, memoranda from confidential sources, statements from prison staff and the like.
Many of the documents are self-serving. Others are little more than speculation. They are not the product of any vetting or credible or fact-finding process; yet they have been given the veracity of such.
This is more than speculation. In 1997, the appellate court made such a fact-finding: “We agree that Clutchette’s file contains false information. He produced uncontroverted declarations which provide that he was neither involved in nor prosecuted in connection with [the 1971] San Quentin Adjustment Center takeover attempt.”
This same court urged California officials to correct Mr. Clutchette’s records, stating that: “[T]his false information suggests that Clutchette was involved in a serious breach of institutional security and implicates him in the death of inmates and correctional officers. Because of the seriousness of this implication, the Department voluntarily should expunge the false information from Clutchette’s file. Removing the false information from Clutchette’s file might avoid litigation each time Clutchette is considered for parole in the future.”
In 1997, the appellate court made this fact-finding: “We agree that Clutchette’s file contains false information. … [T]he Department voluntarily should expunge the false information from Clutchette’s file. Removing the false information from Clutchette’s file might avoid litigation each time Clutchette is considered for parole in the future.” Unfortunately, California officials undertook no such action, leaving the inaccuracies in place to fulfill the court’s prophecy about the potential for harm this false information could cause.
California’s standards governing eligibility of Parole Board commissioners are high. The individuals who make parole decisions must have a broad background in criminal justice and experience or education in the fields of corrections, sociology, law, law enforcement, medicine, mental health or education. Additionally, they must fulfill rigorous, annual training requirements. Such a highly distinguished board thoroughly reviewed Mr. Clutchette’s prison record and determined some of the salacious contents not worthy of their use.
Moreover, a 2007 appellate court deemed much of the content “historically interesting but otherwise irrelevant” for purposes of parole eligibility. In his 2016 reversal of parole, the governor imprudently relied upon these contested contents in Mr. Clutchette’s prison file. In so doing, he completely ignored the wisdom of the board that he appointed, a board that spent considerable time examining the records in this case, and the guidance of the judicial system and rendered a decision that defies logic.
Mr. Clutchette has paid for his past crimes. He is not a public threat. This is evidenced by the California Board of Parole Hearings granting him parole in 2003, 2015, 2016 and again on Jan. 12, 2018. Because of pending, parole-related litigation, Mr. Clutchette postponed at least seven parole suitability hearings, resulting in even more time in custody. He has been eligible for parole since 1988.
The governor is wrong for his: 1) reliance on the false and unreliable information in Mr. Clutchette’s prison records; and, 2) display of an animus to, through the parole process, “sentence” or punish Mr. Clutchette for the 1970s Soledad murder that he was acquitted of, the 1970 Marin County Incident with which he was never charged and the 1971 Adjustment Center Incident with which he was never charged.
Tragically, the governor’s decision to disregard the legal dictate that his actions be guided by some evidence of current dangerousness has come at the expense of an elderly man who is afflicted with a host of health problems. Worse, without intervention, Mr. Clutchette will never be able to establish his suitability for parole because these flawed records will always serve as a bar to his freedom – or can be used as such. Such decision-making is in conflict with California law, as well as human rights tenants.
A3N: What’s the official status of John Clutchette’s case at this moment?
AB: In addition to the pending human rights complaint, Mr. Clutchette has formally brought his challenges to the court (in the form of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by his incredibly talented attorney Keith Wattley).
In December 2017, the attorney general (AG), in defense of the governor, filed a request to keep the records the governor used under seal. In support of this request, the AG argued: “Disclosure [of the documents the governor used to support his decision that John Clutchette is unsuitable for parole] would reveal the identity of the confidential informants from whom the confidential information was obtained and would release information that poses a threat to institutional security.”
These records have been openly considered and discussed by the various parole boards over the years. In each of those instances, the respective boards deemed many of these records unreliable and consistently felt they did not amount to a showing of present dangerousness.
Mr. Clutchette has paid for his past crimes. He is not a public threat. This is evidenced by the California Board of Parole Hearings granting him parole in 2003, 2015, 2016 and again on Jan. 12, 2018. In each of those instances, the respective boards deemed many of the records in his file unreliable and consistently felt they did not amount to a showing of present dangerousness.
In concert with all of this, Mr. Clutchette appeared before the parole board again on Jan. 12, 2018. He was once again granted parole. However, Mr. Clutchette will not actually be released on parole without Gov. Brown’s formal approval.
A3N: How can our readers best help his effort to finally be paroled?
AB: Brother Clutchette is approaching 75 years of age. He has lost too many years to this injustice. Readers have to become his voice at this critical time. They must create a theatre of agitation that makes elected officials uncomfortable abusing power and partaking in racial or social injustices. Officials need to know that political accountability will await them for doing so.
Readers must make John Clutchette’s story a topic of robust discussion. Most importantly, they must speak their immediate opposition to Gov. Brown. Supporters can mail a written letter, send a fax, make a phone call, and/or send an email to his office.
Be sure to include his prisoner ID number: C-23857.
Contact information for Gov. Brown, suggested talking points and sample letter
Contact Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., State Capitol, Suite 1173, Sacramento, California 95814, phone 916-445-2841, fax 916-558-3160, office email (click here), link to email submission page: https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov39mail/
Gov. Brown,
John Clutchette with his late wife in the 1990s
Elderly inmate John Clutchette (C-23857) was again granted parole on Jan. 12, 2018. I urge you not to oppose his release.
In February 1972, John Clutchette was acquitted by the jury who heard and evaluated the evidence against him for the murder of Officer John Mills. In November 1972, he was granted parole. I remind you that none of the “Soledad Brothers” were found guilty of the murder of Officer Mills.
Also noteworthy is the fact that John Clutchette was not charged or convicted in the 1970 Marin County Courthouse matter that was onset by Jonathan Jackson, nor was he charged or convicted in the 1971 Adjustment Center incident that resulted in the death of George Jackson.
Despite this, your reasons for opposing his release appear to involve your desire to punish Mr. Clutchette for these things, extrajudicially. If so, this is an abuse of your powers and it is a violation of California law and of human rights principles.
Mr. Clutchette has fulfilled the 1980 sentence that was imposed in conjunction with the Robert Bowles case. The judicial system did not impose any other sentences upon him. Please respect that.
As determined by your very capable Parole Board on multiple occasions, he is not a present danger and the record, when contextually considered, does not hold “some evidence” of current dangerousness. Please respect this too. I thank you for your attention to this request.
Angola 3 News is a project of the International Coalition to Free the Angola 3. At our website, www.angola3news.com, we provide the latest news about the Angola 3. Additionally, we create our own media projects, which spotlight the issues central to the story of the Angola 3, like racism, repression, prisons, human rights, solitary confinement as torture and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment