Sweeping lawsuit challenging Oklahoma's teen parole policy inches toward trial

Dwain Thomas has appeared on the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board’s violent offender docket five times since 2010.

At every hearing, the 44-year-old prisoner had a positive recommendation from parole investigators and a superb behavior and employment history. But the parole board has consistently declined to advance Thomas to a more intensive stage-two review. In court documents, Thomas argues it’s because he was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder at age 15.

Oklahoma’s parole board works part-time and does not interview prisoners or their advocates at the first stage of the violent parole process. All offenders, whether 15 or 50 at the time of conviction, face the same risk assessment criteria.

“Mr. Thomas, as well as others similarly situated, who has matured, who has done everything within his power to reform and to demonstrate his rehabilitation, and who the Supreme Court says deserves a second chance to live outside prison walls, is far more likely to die in an Oklahoma prison than ever to receive a second chance,” his attorneys from the MacArthur Project and Kirkland and Ellis law firm wrote in a petition filed in federal court in Oklahoma’s Western District.

In the sweeping federal lawsuit , which is on pace to go to trial in the coming months, Thomas argues that Oklahoma’s parole process for juvenile homicide offenders is unconstitutional and must be overhauled. Chief Judge Timothy DeGiusti is presiding over the nearly four-year-old case, which was initially dismissed but revived on appeal via the 10th Circuit in February 2022.

If Thomas prevails, the court could force Oklahoma to implement a special parole process for state prisoners who were convicted as juveniles, taking into account a body of research that shows youth are less culpable than adults and more capable of change and rehabilitation.

Thomas claims that Oklahoma fails to meet the standard set in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 Miller v. Alabama decision. The high court decided that mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences are unconstitutional, with the exception of rare cases in which rehabilitation is deemed impossible.

Thomas also cites the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Graham v. Florida , which established that states must give juveniles a meaningful opportunity to be released if they show maturity and rehabilitation. Oklahoma’s parole system for violent offenders, which has multiple stages and gives the governor the final say on whether a prisoner is released or not, does not meet that standard.

Gov. Kevin Stitt, Department of Corrections Director Steven Harpe and Pardon and Parole Executive Director Tom Bates are listed as defendants in their official capacities. All are expected to testify when the trial commences.

The state maintains that parole is inherently discretionary, with no legal right to appeal a decision or challenge the evidence introduced, and that none of its procedures violate the U.S. Constitution.

“Oklahoma’s parole system was and continues to be a meaningful and realistic availability for inmates serving Life sentences who demonstrate their rehabilitation,” Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General Alejandra J. Brigida wrote in a joint status report.

The pretrial report deadline is Sept. 19. The court will likely set a trial date for later this year or early 2025.

Terry Hunt was 16 when he was convicted of first-degree murder in Tulsa County and sentenced to life in prison. Now 43, he said he has kept a clean disciplinary record for two decades and received a favorable recommendation from parole investigators five times since 2011. Last year the parole board denied his application Tulsa County District Attorney’s office objected to his release.

Hunt said he understands that the parole board has a heavy caseload and time constraints, but hopes that the court’s ruling will spur a special juvenile docket.

“I’m not saying that because you’re a juvenile you should be let out, but you should be able to show your whole body of work,” Hunt said via phone from the Joseph Harp Correctional Facility in Lexington. “After 10, 20 or 30 years of prison, you can pretty much see who has reformed and who hasn’t.”

Sue Hinton, a retired teacher and justice reform advocate who has attended nearly every parole board meeting since 2019, said the board is much more likely to recommend early release if a prisoner or a family member makes a personal appeal on their rehabilitation. The parole board changed its procedures on in-person hearings in the late 1990s as the state’s prison population soared.

Hinton said a special process that allows juvenile homicide offenders to speak directly with board members and detail their rehabilitation early on would be ideal.

“The difference between the parole board looking at a file rather than looking at a face is staggering,” she said.

The MacArthur Center for Justice filed a similar lawsuit in Missouri in 2017. In that case, the federal court issued an order requiring the state to change more than 20 aspects of its juvenile parole process, including allowing parole applicants to have legal counsel at all hearings and mandating youth parole training for board members. At least 17 Missouri juvenile offenders serving life sentences were released after the court’s decision.

Andrew Keats, a senior attorney with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center , said parole board members and governors can face significant political backlash if a violent offender released on parole reoffends and are often predisposed to say no.

Having clear criteria and benchmarks for juvenile reform can help officials make more confident and informed decisions, Keats said.

“If they have shown a change, under the Supreme Court cases, they should be released,” Keats said. “And the thing about parole is you’re still going to serve a life sentence. You just are now under supervision outside in the community.”

Hunt, who had a welding job and housing secured ahead of his last parole hearing, will be eligible for parole again in October 2026. He said he’s looking forward to maintaining good behavior and once again making his case for release.

“You either get better or you get worse,” Hunt said. “You clearly get a better understanding of yourself. My eyes were opened up to the sort of harm that I have done. I want to do good and be able to do good.”

Oklahoma Watch, at oklahomawatch.org , is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that covers public-policy issues facing the state.

This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Sweeping lawsuit challenging Oklahoma's teen parole policy inches toward trial