Brust, et al. v. Ohio Parole Board, et al.

Shawn Brust has served over 23 years of a 15-years-to-life sentence. After reviewing Mr. Brust’s record and conducting a hearing, the Ohio Parole Board determined by an 8-0 vote that he was suitable for release and should be paroled. But, after receiving statements from the victim’s family, the Board reversed its decisions and denied Mr. Brust parole. It also denied Mr. Brust and his counsel an opportunity to view these victim-related statements, despite them being an essential factor in the Board’s decision to reverse its decision.

Mr. Brust and his counsel challenged the Board’s policy of keeping all written statements from victims, their families or representatives in the parole process confidential, arguing that Ohio has recognized a due process right to have the Parole Board not base it decision on false information, but one cannot vindicate that right without knowing what information has been submitted to the Board.

The lower court dismissed Mr. Brust’s case, concluding that there was “no credible evidence that the Board relied on inaccurate records,” and that Mr. Brust had not shown he was “denied meaningful consideration for parole because the Board weighs in several factors, including victim statements, to make their decision to deny parole,” despite the Board initially granting parole before receiving the statement from the victim’s family. The lower court also argued that there is “legitimate government interest in keeping victim statements confidential.”

The Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, alongside the Due Process Institute, Cincinnati Black United Front and Abolitionist Law Center, filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Brust on appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Tenth Appellate District, arguing that:

1. The Ohio Constitution’s due process clause is substantially broader than its 14th amendment counterpart, so a due process right exists under the state constitution.
2. Minimum due process, in whatever form, requires some notice of allegations against a parole-eligible person.
3. Lack of due process takes a real human toll on parole-eligible people.

“Due process exists because the lack of fairness in any proceeding upon which one’s future circumstances hinge can be maddening. This is true whether the Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts proceeding will determine one’s continued employment, one’s admission to practice law, or one’s eligibility for a government benefit. But where the consequences are a person’s very freedom, an arbitrary and dishonest process inflicts particularly profound psychological trauma.”

– Counsel for the Due Process Institute, et al. as amicus