The Injustice of Five Years of Unfair Jury Trials In Virginia Remains Uncorrected
In 1994 the Virginia General Assembly passed laws abolishing parole for all persons convicted of non-violent and violent crimes committed on or after January 1, 1995, allowing only for geriatric release for certain class of offenders over the age of sixty or sixty-five. When these laws came into effect in 1995, the court rules at the time prohibited judges from instructing juries in non-capital cases that the offender would not be entitled to parole if sentenced to a term of incarceration, even in cases where the jury requests to know whether the offender would be entitled to parole. As a result, juries who sentenced offenders in the months and years following the abolition of parole were not instructed by judges that sentences under the erroneous impression that only a fraction of the sentence would be served by the offender. It was not until June 2000, in the case of Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104, 532 S.E. 2d 629 (200), that Virginia Supreme Court ruled that judges must instruct jurors in all non-capital cases that parole has been abolished. In reaching it's decision, the Supreme Court confirmed what had long been obvious to observers of Virginia criminal justice system: that instructing juries who will impose sentence that parole has been abolished would ensure a fair trial for both the offender and the Commonwealth. Sadly, however, the Supreme Court declined to make it's Fishback ruling retroactive, meaning that those offenders whose convictions had become final before the ruling would not be entitled to a new sentencing by a jury that is properly instructed on would not be entitled to a new sentencing by a jury that is properly instructed on the abolition of parole. ### RIHD Form Unfair Jury Trials.doc
Click On, Fill Out, Print, Mail back to RIHD/PAFERJ
PO Box 55 - Highland Springs - VA 23075