STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF KENT STEPHANI ANNE SCRUGGS etal, 7 CASE NO, 18-09855-AP Plaintiffs, Honorable J. Joseph Rossi v. CATHERINE WOOD, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD. INTRODUCTION Factual Summary Catherine Wood and her lover Gwendolyn Graham worked at Alpine manner nursing home in the late 1980's. During a three-month killing spree in 1987, they selected and murdered at least five elderly and incapacitated patients who were under their care, Ms. Wood described a selection process for the victims where she and Ms, Graham “tested” the helpless patients by squeezing their nostrils shut so that they could not breathe. ‘Those who offered the least resistance became the targets. Aocording to Ms. Wood, she kept a lookout while Ms, Graham smothered the selected victims. Following each murder, the two engaged in bouts of drug use, drinking, and sexual activity. Ms. Wood’s precise role in the selection and murders has never been made totally clear, as she offered contradictory accounts during the succeeding years. What is clear is that, in exchange for her testimony against Ms. Graham, she was allowed to plead guilty to two counts, second degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, for which she reveived a sentence of 20-40 years imprisonment, Ms. Wood claimed that she was unsafe in Michigan's sole women’s prison where Ms. Graham was confined and has served most of her sentence in federal correctional facilities and is currently housed in Tallahassee, Florida, Ms, Wood began requesting consideration for parole as early as-2005. She has been a well-behaved prisoner and has completed virtually every academic and self-improvement course offered in her facility. She has amassed an excellent work record in Unicor, a company operated by federal prison industries. Thus, each time she has been considered by the Michigan Parole Board (“the Board”), Ms. Wood’s guidelines have indicated a “High Probability of Parole.” Yet, the parole board rejected her requests on at least eight prior applications. ‘The reasons given for thos¢ previous denials included: “1otal lack of empathy during Parole Boatd Interview” (2005), failure to show empathy for surviving victims (2006), “litle insight as to her criminal deviancy"(2009), lack of a sufficient parole plan (2012), lack of reasonable assurance of public safety due to multiple offenses (2014), luck of transparency, remorse (2015) and scope and gravity of offense (2016). In 2018, the Board reversed course and recommended parole, at least partially upon the basis that Ms. Wood finally displayed appropriate remorse fox her actions,Janice Lucille Hunderman, daughter of vietim Margurite Chambers, along with other relatives of victims appealed the Board’s decision to the Cireuit Court. Procedaral Summary Petitioners timely filed their application for eave to appeal. The Court convened a hearing regarding whether Ms. Wood should remain in custody while the appeal was pending. At that hearing, Ms. Wood agreed to remain in custody while this appeal is pending. Following that hearing, the court appointed counsel for Ms. Wood. The Boatd provided the Court certified copy ofits record, Appellants and Respondents, the Board, and Ms. Wood submitted briefs on appeal, LAW AND ANALYSIS A. Burden of Proof. _____‘The appellant has the burden of establishing that the decision of the parole board was: is @) in violation of the Michigan Constitution, a statute, an administrative rule, or a written agency regulation that is exempted from promulgation pursuant to MCL 24.207, or (b) 2 clear abuse of discretion, MCR 7.118(H)(3), See also Wayne Co Prosecutor v Parole Bd, 210 Mich App 148, 153 (1995) (“the parole board’s] discretion . .. is not unfettered but ... is circumscribed by the many requirements of the [applicable statutes)”. . B, Remand to the Board. ‘The Michigan Court Rules provide that the circuit court, on its own motion or a party's ‘motion, may remand the matter to the Board for an explanation ofits decision. MCR. 7.118(H)(4). “The parole board shall hear and decide the matter within 28 days of the date of the order, unless the board determines that an adjournment is necessary to obtain evidence or there is ‘other good cause for an adjournment.” MCR 7.118(H)(4)(a).. Based upon the record, the Court cannot evaluate the Board’s decision to grant parole to deferidant. Therefore, the Court remands this matter and requests explanation from the Board of the basis for its decision regarding the following issues. 1. Absence of risk assessment At the core of assuring public safety is an assessment of the risk of a defendant “committing further assaultive crime.” Mich Admin Code, R 791.7715(2X(a)(iv). But the record contains no future risk assessment, and the Parole Guidelines Scoresheet” acknowledges, “Insufficient Information Assaultive Risk.” Pre-trial detainees are routinely sereened using the 1 The Michigan Attorney General belatedly filed an Amicus Briof on May 30,2019, which was received via ‘uesimile by the court at 3:14 pm. thet date, a Fridey. Oral argument occurred Monday June 3 at 2:30 pm. The Assistant Attomey Goneral (AAG) representing the board objected to the Amicus brief as improper in circuit cout -ppeals and filed without a timely motion contrary o MCR 7.212(H)(1). The AAG clarified that the office can ‘appear aud advocate on both sides ofa case utilizing a “firewall” between the attomey’s involved. As the Amnicus brief was filed in clear violation of the Court Rue, its STRICKEN on the court’s owt motion, and the arguments therein were not considered by the cout 2COMPAS risk assessment tool to inform the court's pre-trial release and bond decision in matters infinitely less serious than the instant case. The same is trae of Pre-sontence Investigation Reports (PSIRs), which are utilized in all felony sentencing, ‘The acknowledged lack of any assessment here (except, perhaps, as it may be “inferred” from other factors) calls into question whether the Board followed the clear regulatory guidance. ‘The court therefore remands this matter to the Board for further explanation and evidentiary development (ie. performing a tisk assessment) as needed, 2. Absence of a transition accountability plan. ‘No adequate transition accountability plan (TAP) exists in the record. The record contains ‘numerous “Case Summary Reports” and “Parole Guidelines Scoresheets,” as well as reviews of Ms. Wood's conduct as a prisoner. The Federal Bureau of Prisons created a “Summary Re-entry Plan ~ Progress Report” dated June 6, 2018 which appears in the record. That report contains information about Ms. Wood's savings balance, a transcript of her coursework in prison, and the name and address of her sister in South Carolina, which is her proposed residence. It also notes that her record is clear of inftactions while in prison._ ‘There is no analysis of her prospects for employment following discharge. ‘There is no discussion regarding the types of jobs for which Ms, Wood is best suited, ‘There is no discussion of strengths and weaknesses of Ms. Wood. The “plan” lacks information regarding resources available to Ms. Wood to address her ongoing need for mental health treatment, * The most glaring omission is the lack of any restriction on Ms. Wood caring for elderly or disabled individuals as a condition of parole. ‘That restriction did appear in her 2015 proposed conditions of parole. The Court remands for explanation from the Board as to why it did not requite a complete transition accountability plan in this matter, given the need to reasonably assure that Ms. Wood will not again become a menace to society or public safety. 3. Absence of a recent psychological evaluation by a fully licensed examiner. ‘The record does not contain any evaluation mote recent than 2016. That assessment, performed by an intern, explains the value of an assessment in evaluating future tisk: ‘There are no consistent means by which to accurately predict an individual’s future behavior. Some accuracy, however, has been demonstrated by considering past behavior pattems in combination with demographic, personal and possible precipitating factors in conjunction with psychological assessment data. ‘The administrative rules governing parole emphasize the importance of assessment of a defondant’s mental health status prior to parole where, “there is a history of .. physical assault.related to a deviant mental state.” Mich Admin Code, R 791.7716(3)(C)(e)Gi). ® ‘The assessment’s sole comment regarding Ms. Wood's future relationship plans is, “she would like to wait to develop/get into a relationship as her primary priority is going to be her own mental health and psychological well-being.” However, the same assessment indicates that Ms, Wood terminated her last psychological counseling in December 2014. The record does not contain any information regarting Ms. Wood’s receipt of psychological treatment since that time, or concrete plan to obtain treatment on parole.