28 C.F.R. § 2.72

Hearing procedure

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) At the initial hearing the examiner shall review with the prisoner the guidelines at § 2.80, and shall discuss with the prisoner such information as the examiner deems relevant, including the prisoner's offense behavior, criminal history, institutional record, health status, release plans, and community support. If the examiner determines that the available file material is not adequate for this purpose the examiner may order the hearing to be postponed to the next docket so that the missing information can be requested.

(b) A prisoner may have a representative at the hearing pursuant to § 2.13(b) and the opportunity for prehearing disclosure of file material pursuant to § 2.55.

(c) A victim of a crime, or a representative of the immediate family of a victim if the victim has died, shall have the right:

(1) To be present at the parole hearings of each offender who committed the crime, and

(2) To testify and/or offer a written or recorded statement as to whether or not parole should be granted, including information and reasons in support of such statement. A written statement may be submitted at the hearing or provided separately. The prisoner may be excluded from the hearing room during the appearance of a victim or representative who gives testimony. In lieu of appearing at a parole hearing, a victim or representative may request permission to appear before an examiner (or other staff member), who shall record and summarize the victim's or representative's testimony. Whenever new and significant information is provided under this rule, the hearing examiner will summarize the information at the parole hearing and will give the prisoner an opportunity to respond. Such summary shall be consistent with a reasonable request for confidentiality by the victim or representative.

(d) Attorneys, family members, relatives, friends of the prisoner, or other interested persons desiring to submit information pertinent to any prisoner, may do so at any time, but such information must be received by the Commission at least 30 days prior to a scheduled hearing in order to be considered at that hearing. Such persons may also request permission to appear at the offices of the Commission to speak to a Commission staff member, provided such request is received at least 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing. The purpose of this office visit will be to supplement the Commission's record with pertinent factual information concerning the prisoner, which shall be placed in the record for consideration at the hearing. An office visit at a time other than set forth in this paragraph may be authorized only if the Commission finds good cause based upon a written request setting forth the nature of the information to be discussed. See § 2.22.

(e) A full and complete recording of every parole hearing shall be retained by the Commission. Upon a request pursuant to § 2.56, the Commission shall make available to any eligible prisoner such record as the Commission has retained of the hearing.

(f) Because parole decisions must be reached through a record-based hearing and voting process, no contacts shall be permitted between any person attempting to influence the Commission's decision-making process, and the examiners and Commissioners of the Commission, except as expressly provided in this subpart.

[65 FR 45888, July 26, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 41530, July 14, 2003; 69 FR 5274, Feb. 4, 2004]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 2002–2018 · leading case: Settles v. United States Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Settles v. United States Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “45,885, 45,888 (July 26, 2000) (codified at 28 C.F.R. § 2.72 (c) (2001)). Settles was not permitted to have a representative present at his June 2000 parole hearing because he was a D.”

Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2009). “25 , and eliminated the “in person” requirement for hearings by amending 28 C.F.R. § 2.72 (a). The proffered reason was to “reduce travel costs and conserve the time of its hearing examiners” without diminishing “the prisoner’s ability to effectively participate in the hearing.”

Daniel v. Smoot, 287 F. Supp. 3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.72 ; Pls.' Mem. at 4-5 n.3.”

Muhammad v. Mendez, 200 F. Supp. 2d 466 (M.D. Penn. 2002). “28 C.F.R. § 2.72 (g). Furthermore, upon a request, the Commission shall make available to any eligible prisoner such record as the Commission has retained of the hearing.”

Daniel v. Fulwood (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.72 ; Pls.’ Mem. at 4–5 n.3.”

Hill v. United States Parole Comm'n (D.D.C. 2017). “The process also starts with an initial hearing by an examiner, see 28 C.F.R. § 2.72 (a), but then the case proceeds directly to the full Commission for a majority vote.”

Jones, Jr. v. Fulwood (D.D.C. 2011). “He sues the Chairrnan of the United States Parole Commission and other individuals for allegedly violating parole guideline 28 C.F.R. § 2.72 (1}, which states that: "Because parole decisions must be reached through a record-based hearing and voting process.”

Sammy Terrell v. United States (6th Cir. 2009). “25 , and eliminated the “in person” requirement for hearings by amending 28 C.F.R. § 2.72 (a). The proffered reason was to “reduce travel costs and conserve the time of its hearing examiners” without diminishing “the prisoner’s ability to effectively participate in the hearing.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.