A Judge Has Ordered Him Released From Prison—Twice. The Government Still Won’t Set Him Free.

Bobby Sneed’s 75th birthday will be celebrated in two places. One is the Louisiana State Penitentiary (also known as Angola), or another nearby prison. Since he was convicted for his involvement in the 1974 burglary, he has spent more than 47 years behind bars. 

The year ahead was different. He was released by the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole months before. Sneed was still in prison despite his release on March 29, 2021. court decisionOrder his release

A judge also ruled that Sneed should be released early last week. As he waited at the gate to be picked up, prison officials refused to release Sneed. Instead, they rearrested him and transferred him to West Feliciana Parish Detention Center, St. Francisville.

This was yet another plot twist in Sneed’s legal odyssey. It was set by the Committee on Parole in an attempt to reverse its decision, and in violation of state law. Sneed’s story highlights how far some government agents will go to keep people locked up—flouting the same legal standards they are charged with upholding, even after they’ve publicly conceded the person poses no danger to society.

Judge Ron Johnson from East Baton Rouge Parish wrote that the “minimum requirements” of due process for parole revocation require disclosure of evidence, the right to question and cross-examine adverse witness, the ‘right of confronting and cross-examine them, the right to confront and interrogate them, the right to confront and challenge them,’ and a ’neutral and detached hearing body. Also, the factfinders must give a written statement regarding the evidence used. “Because it is undisputed that no such procedures were followed when Mr. Sneed’s parole was stripped…this Court finds that [he] was deprived…of due process of law.”

Mid-March saw Sneed collapse in one of the prison cells, just 17 minutes after the Committee on Parole had approved his release. dormitories. He was then admitted to the hospital, and he was found to have tested positive for both methamphetamines as well as amphetamine. However, there wasn’t a complete chain of custody for the urine samples and it was impossible to verify who they belonged to. Sneed was admitted to using drugs in doctor’s notes. However, Sneed’s lawyer Thomas Frampton later stated that Sneed had never said it. Sneed was in and out of conscious, but he couldn’t speak for himself.

Sneed maintained that he was innocent, and the disciplinary committee decided in his favor. The Committee on Parole didn’t hesitate to illegally move for his release during a May hearing. This was long after his release deadline. At that time, he was to have been at home with his loved ones. He was instead kept in isolation.

Avoid complying with SecondSneed was released by a court order. Friday’s arrest warrant for another contraband offense was issued by the Committee on Parole. 

It was this same panel which already acknowledged Sneed’s no-risk status to the community. (Sneed was a Vietnam Veteran who had a stroke in 2005. After that, he needed to learn to walk and speak again. However, what if? It isIs it possible to be guilty of using contraband products? Is that a change in their decision? “I don’t believe that there’s any threat to public safety….By keeping him incarcerated, at his age and with [his]It’s harder to pay for medical care when there are very few taxpayer dollars available. [locked up]Kerry Myers is the deputy director for Louisiana Parole Project. “Is there a better use of resources?”

Francis Abbott was the executive director of Louisiana Board of Pardons and Committee on Parle before that may rescission hearing. It was told to meThey had good reasons to continue moving forward. He stated, “We have documents that we submitted to the board but they are closed to the public.” Sneed and his legal team were also denied access to those documents. The only thing was that it was. After the hearing that the evidence—detailing, for instance, the doctor’s comments on Sneed’s alleged drug use—was provided to them. Frampton was able to locate the doctor that treated Bobby, the one who admitted that Sneed had not, in truth, confessed to any of the above. Frampton couldn’t counter the government’s assertions during the hearing because he was not provided with all the details.

The hearing was viewed via Zoom and the defendant did not know of any evidence. His team also wasn’t allowed to call witnesses. According to Judge Johnson, last week’s decision states that “Indeed the Respondents position was not that they needed to afford Mr. Sneed proper revocation hearing.”

Sneed’s second federal civil right was the reason for his ruling. LawsuitTim Hooper, Angola warden and Abbott. The motion-to dismiss filed by the government argued that Sneed had “failed” to show or allege that Director Abbott was authorized to act in an official capacity with regard to Angola. [Sneed’s]Parole status, or that he did it actually.”

Once the public records became available, that argument and admission would return to haunt them. Abbott sent Whitney Troxclair, the parole administrator, an email on March 26, at 6:50 am, to say that he was not going to sign any papers. This came three days prior Sneed was due for release. He sent the email about an hour later to Whitney Troxclair, Parole Board Chair, informing her of his actions. “FYI granted last Thursday, and was set to release Monday.” The government seems to admit that Abbott didn’t have the legal authority to block Sneed from being released. It seems that this is what Abbott did. 

Abbott stated, “Thanks to your continued interest in the subject, unfortunately we will no longer be commenting since this is an ongoing matter.” There are reasonsThis week.

Sneed protected a victim who was being robbed by three of his associates in 1974. He was only two blocks from the scene of the crime, but he was charged principally to be guilty. second-degree murder—a conviction that was overturned after he successfully petitioned for the court to vacate it. Similar to the felony murder rule, the charge allowed the government to prosecute him for murder—while also conceding he didn’t kill anyone—as it occurred during the commission of a related crime. In 1987, he was again convicted. Sneed’s suit reads, “Mr. Sneed feels deeply guilty for his part in the murder Mr. Jones.” He has had time to reflect upon his involvement in the crime and the ways he could’ve prevented it from happening. Sneed remains the only prisoner among the six accused in the burglary. 

Frampton moved to have the state officials held in contempt after Sneed was refused release by the prison. Months after Sneed was declared non-hazardous to the community by the government, Frampton filed a motion to hold the officials in contempt. We will soon discover if they succeed in bringing him back to jail for another birthday.