Parole board is fast, loose in death case

Clemency review is supposed to be a safety valve, a procedure designed to make certain the state doesn't commit an egregious mistake when it delivers a lethal injection. The process in Ohio, in fact, is slipshod and lax. The parole board doesn't appear to recognize, much less enforce, basic formalities that help ensure fairness.

One of the parole board's nine members, for example, conducts an in-depth interview with the inmate. This is the only face-to-face meeting with the condemned prisoner.

But no video or audio tape is made. No transcript is kept. Thus, the decision on whether to spare a life depends, in part, on one person's recollection and impressions.

This failure also leads to public misinformation. Attorney General Jim Petro wrote in the Dayton Daily News last month that Mr. Spirko had told the parole board member during his interview that he was "wrongly convicted" of another murder - a statement Mr. Petro mocked as part of a "continuing pattern of self-serving deception."

The defense lawyer who attended the interview said Mr. Petro was wrong, that Mr. Spirko had said his earlier conviction was "just." The parole board backed the defense lawyer's account, but not before the attorney general's damaging misstatement was published.

The parole board doesn't just fail to keep an essential record; it also has a loose attitude toward secret communications with prosecutors - the kind that are absolutely prohibited in a court setting.

The lead assistant attorney general in the Spirko case, for example, gave a private "heads up" in an e-mail to Parole Board Chairman Gary Croft this summer when the media asked about the parole board interview.

The communication (obtained under the Ohio Public Records Act) creates theoffensive appearance of a prosecutor and parole board coordinating their public-relations efforts. It reveals a climate that's so informal the prosecutor even felt comfortable taking a shot at Mr. Spirko's lawyers.

He told the parole board chief that defense "attorneys are already misrepresenting to the press what he (Mr. Spirko) said."

None of this was disclosed to Mr. Spirko's lawyers, who appeared at the clemency hearing unaware that their integrity had been maligned in a private communication between top state officials.

The parole board initiates these private communications itself - including this summer, when it asked the attorney general's office (again via e-mail) for a summary of the Spirko case so one of its members could prepare for the interview with Mr. Spirko.

Mr. Spirko's lawyers were never informed of the request, or the attorney general's response. A spokesman for the attorney general's office says the parole board only was sent a written summary prepared by the Ohio Supreme Court, a public record in the case. But that can't be confirmed because the e-mail exchange has been deleted from the attorney general's records. Since theywere left out of the loop, Mr. Spirko's lawyers had no chance to suggestwhat else the parole board member might review for a balanced view of the case.

Parole board members were unwilling to be interviewed about these practices, referring questions to the attorney general.

A clemency process that's run in so careless a manner doesn't deserve the confidence of Gov. Bob Taft - or the public.

(source: Editorial, Dayton Daily News)