You're watching...
FNC senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on Dennis Kozlowski’s parole board not reading a letter sent to it by his trial judge.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Let's not forget renowned whatever feelings you have about does is -- Was this Parole Board being fair to -- and also want you to keep in mind there are other -- is out there.
In other prisons from lots of other reasons all usually afforded the same parole privileges based on.
Usually the same -- issues proof of good behavior and not proof of perceived reform or not.
Parole boards weigh those vicious but can they deliberately ignored we're not even include certain issues to large -- -- says.
Well I guess no they can.
-- You know it's difficult to get an appellate court to reverse a decision of a Parole Board.
But the the standard of review is -- the Parole Board abuse its discretion.
And the first set of questions are did they consider everything before them.
Did they consider extraneous things there is nothing more potent to a Parole Board them a letter to a -- from a trial judge.
Who's basically saying.
I may have over sentenced him he's already paid his debt back.
I know the facts in the case better than you I was the trial judge in the case if you want to let them go that's fine with me -- If you write a letter like that once in your career as a trial judge you will not forget -- -- -- only write it once I never wrote such -- latter.
Usually you don't feel.
That way about the people that you sentenced to long prison terms.
But this judge a well respected jurist went out of his way to do something that other judges don't do.
And the Parole Board refused to take that into account.
Refusal is an abuse of discretion and abuse of discretion is sufficient to get their decision reversed by an appellate court.
What are on their -- argues we don't hear what his sentencing judge set us on we think he's a threat to society and the story.
They cannot point to any thing.
That Dennis would do that is a threat to society and in fact that language.
Is standard language from the statute because the statute that creates a Parole Board and -- it basically says.
If you the board find that the of the convict is a threat to society don't let him out so -- -- -- -- let somebody out.
That's the standard routine boilerplate language they use -- different religious Parole Board is that you need to necessarily your general Parole -- today it numbers that you near its April Borchardt here it's a New York State Parole Board would have made no difference -- -- -- in the other prison.
On he -- -- he might have been before different human beings.
Different hearing officers but it's basically the same board.
And the same standard of review by the by the appellate courts look at this letter -- our.
Dog and colleague.
Eric spun out of guys this is dynamite millions very good contacts with prison convicts you're talking about its anonymously when -- -- that jail to visit.
He says -- -- by the way who he even made sure that I could lead to jail hot hot hot I don't know I just got out there are just -- but you know what's interesting here -- all serious -- is just what I don't understand.
That.
If it did sentencing judge is saying we think -- more I think kids be in disguise served his time in other -- he's too good to get out his form of whatever.
He's also said -- in to -- in the third.
225 years right he served seven years now yes so when next -- comes along whether it's another operative parole or not.
He would get out or potentially could get out.
The serving the minimum sentence of that into thirds when he tried.
Well well he could but that is a a decision not for the trial judge to -- had -- isn't that confident Parole Board and it gives no it's not for the Parole Board to make adults for the commissioner of corrections to make and how -- that doesn't -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Parole Board no it doesn't think commissioner corrections could very well say you know what this guy's not a threat to any -- and amount after the media after the third and in fairness to.
The trial judge who sentenced him to this.
Wacky -- -- third to 25.
That's the way they do it in new York and some other states like New Jersey as sentenced to -- precise amount there is no.
Indeterminate range the discretion -- with the trial judge the sentencing judge not with the people that run jails.
Does -- Parole Board consider you who -- -- a cushy.
Minimum security prison work release type deal that seems like prison but really not.
And Edwards -- you don't find just now Dennis yeah.
Yes they do in the it is unlikely that they're going to keep them for 25 years.
If they put him in this cushy.
As -- go.
Opposition what he's he's free during the -- he's free to come and I've lunch with you during the day works during the day works as a businessman mine during the day they wouldn't put them in a position like that in fact.
Putting him there.
Is is is Contra.
The idea.
That he is a danger to society because he is free and unsupervised during the day so be such a danger to society while they let him out eight hours a day.
The pro board -- want to answer that.
You know -- it comes back to something he vehemently argue with me.
From his old prison -- a few years ago that he was held to a different an unfair standard that he did nothing.
Illegal.
He didn't lavish shareholder money on for personal gain and obviously but the -- -- great.
But but -- he became a poster check -- and I was punished accordingly.
I I could not agree with -- more it was a perfect storm where there was what was perceived as corporate excess.
And then that government took on the mantle of the avenging Angel for the corporate excess how could it possibly be a crime and here I'm gonna got a little philosophical.
To persuade the board of directors that you are worth a hefty bonus of the board says yes.
Then you get the -- it can't be a crime to persuade them and to accept the punishment that's basically what he's accused obvious it was accused or convicted of cooking the books.
Taking five million member according and its 5000.
He was accused of being too good a salesman.
For the board of directors.
He took that company and made the shareholders wealthy he increased corporate equity -- to an astronomical rate.
And he was entitled to be compensated accordingly that some jury should decide.
That being compensated accordingly was criminal is inconsistent with what's that what's going on here is more egregious now event.
Yes yes because now there is this continued.
He's a bad guy we have to make a big deal out of that he's no more danger -- -- you were pushing this non guys in the bedroom I'm really just.
-- -- -- -- -- Well I don't know who the panel was that sat in his right -- his case though are ready tranche of I don't remember their names.
These are appointed -- people appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate so they are.
High ranking.
Theoretically well reputed.
People in the State of New York that the government necessarily Governor Cuomo it it could have been one of his predecessors.
Appointed to this full time job.
We're -- fear repercussions if that it let -- go well they shouldn't correlate well they shouldn't be does that make these decisions every day and they don't run for office they're appointed for a term by the governor.
If you're a Democrat and -- like the job they'll get appointed by democratic governor and if -- Republican on the governors are Republican they'll they'll get another term.
Terence some parents are -- schooling me through administered to bottle products right now.
