Claude Heffron Co-Authors Star Ledger Opinion on NJ Criminal Legal System’s Failure to Comply with the ADA
Claude Heffron, Fellow of the Justice Gary S. Stein Public Interest Center at Pashman Stein Walder Hayden P.C., co-authored a Star Ledger Guest Columnist Opinion, together with Professor Alexis Karteron, Professor of Clinical Law and director of the Civil Rights in the Criminal Legal System Clinic at NYU School of Law (the “NYU Clinic”). Titled “N.J.’s Prisons and State Parole Board are Breaking the Law,” the Opinion suggests that it is proper time for the New Jersey criminal justice system to offer appropriate supports to people with disabilities as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Opinion discusses the case of a client represented by Heffron and the NYU Clinic and how New Jersey’s prisons and parole board fell short. The full text of the Opinion is below.
This month marks 34 years since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which seeks to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Few systems fail to meet the ADA’s mandate as spectacularly as the criminal legal system, particularly in New Jersey.
With two million people behind bars, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Four out of 10 people in state prisons report having a physical or mental disability, nearly twice the rate of the general population.
People with disabilities are overrepresented in prison -- not because they are inherently dangerous, but because their disabilities disadvantage them in navigating the legal system. The results are bad outcomes: longer sentences, lower rates of release on parole, and more onerous conditions of supervision.
Although the ADA requires governmental agencies to meet the individualized needs of persons with disabilities -- for example, by providing oral information to people with limited literacy due to disability -- New Jersey’s prisons and parole board fall short.
We saw this firsthand with our client, Paul Williams Jr., who has mental and intellectual disabilities, as we helped him prepare for his 12th hearing before the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Paul had been incarcerated since 1972, when, at age 20, he was involved in a robbery in which his co-defendant killed an innocent person. He received a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole.
Paul’s first parole hearing was in 1993; he was just released this year. At his first 11 hearings, Paul was denied parole partly because his disabilities were not properly diagnosed and treated, and his individualized needs were not met -- as required by the ADA.
After 30 years in prison, long after his symptoms began, Paul was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He eventually received appropriate treatment and was housed on a specialized mental health unit. Previously, Paul incurred numerous disciplinary infractions stemming from his paranoia, a classic symptom of schizophrenia.
Hearing after hearing, Paul had to field questions about his disciplinary history from the parole board, and his record stymied his chance at release. After these unsuccessful hearings, the parole board counseled him to participate in rehabilitative programming, but he did not have access to all prison programs in his specialized unit.
New Jersey does not typically permit lawyers or advocates to accompany their clients to parole hearings. It made no exception for Paul. He therefore struggled to advocate for himself.
After decades in prison, his faded memory sometimes caused him to stumble over the details of his crime. Additionally, the psychiatric medication he takes causes slurred speech and involuntary movements, impairing his communication. This can trigger the subconscious biases many people have against people with disabilities. Indeed, many of the parole board’s written decisions denying his release express doubt about Paul’s heartfelt remorse.
After numerous parole denials, Paul wrote to the Office of the Public Defender to seek assistance. Because his case reflected a grave injustice, the OPD partnered with an NYU law clinic to represent him.
We obtained an evaluation by an independent psychiatrist, who confirmed that Paul’s schizophrenia was well managed. The report explained that Paul’s medication impaired his speech and what Paul needed to succeed outside prison. We also identified a program that would provide Paul with medication and therapy upon release, and created a mitigation film that we hoped would help the Parole Board see Paul beyond his disabilities.
At 71, Paul was released to his loving family in January, after more than 51 years in prison.
He owes his freedom to his incredible resilience and his stroke of luck in accessing volunteer assistance. Since there is no right to an attorney in parole proceedings, most people do not receive legal help even though their freedom is at stake.
Given their obligations under the ADA, the prison and parole board should have offered Paul support. They should have evaluated him appropriately and offered him the help he needed to navigate his hearing and life on parole.
Many people with disabilities languish behind bars for decades, as Paul did. The ADA has required the criminal legal system to offer appropriate supports to people with disabilities since 1990. It is high time for the New Jersey criminal justice system to meet that mandate.
To read the opinion on NJ.com, click here.