INSIDE ...
• Barriers to Voting Rights
Welcome Back ... p. 3.

• Mecklenburg Legal Access
"Dark Days" Back in Va.? ... p. 2.

• The Death Penalty

A Personal View .... p. 8.

•

NUMBER 3,

ISSN 0748·2655

SPRING,1985

Statewide Attack on Florida
Jails Brings Improvement
Arias v. Wainwright

New Res~urces
Media Resources Packet on Jails, 9
1985 Prisoners' Assistance Directory. II
Death Penalty Information Packet. 6

UPCOMING ...
Beginning with the next issue, we plan
a series of articles examining one of the
most controversial developments in
corrections. the proliferation of the
supermaximum, or "last resort",
prison. We will look at this phenomenon here and in other countries.

Steven Ney

Grim Start Gives Way
to Promising Improvements
The National Prison Project
launched an ambitious lawsuit in 1979
challenging conditions in all of Florida's
county and city jails. During the case we
conducted tours of the jails with our
expert witnesses and found:
I. jails without fire escapes, fire
alarms, smoke detectors or fire extingUishers; jails with polyurethane (flammable) mattresses (readers will remember the Biloxi, Mississippi jail fire in 1983
which killed 29 inmates);
2. Filthy physical conditions, cells without light, broken and leaking toilets, and
no ventilation in the stifling heat;
3. Prisoners left unsupervised in large
cells or dormitories, susceptible to gang
rapes and assaults;
4. Prisoners who had to talk through a
solid wooden door to "visit" with their
families;
"
5. Jails without any medical screening
of incoming prisoners which allowed the
rapid spread of infectious disease;
6. Prisoners kept for months under
total lock-down conditions, never leaving
their cells;
7. Prisoners who were weak, pallid,
and depressed from lack of indoor and
outdoor exercise;
8. Obviously psychotic prisoners warehoused without any treatment;
9. Prisoners sleeping on the floors in
hallways, under bunks and next to open
toilets;
10. juveniles confined in broom closets
without light.
-continued on page 5.

Crowded conditions in this county jail in Alabama resemble those in many jails.

Rhode Island Prisons Changing
After 7-Year Litigation Effort
Alvin j. Bronstein

Ori a bright spring day in May,
1977, I accompanied United States District judge Raymond j. Pettine, his law
clerks, and the other lawyers involved in
the trial of the system-wide Rhode Island
prison conditions case, on an inspection
tour of the Maximum Security Prison in
Cranston, Rhode Island. We went from
sunshine to the bowels of a dark dungeon. The massive iron cellblocks were
arranged in three ascending tiers. The

sense of idleness was pervasive as we
saw hundreds of prisoners lying in their
cells or standing around on the tiered
walkways. Many were arguing or yelling
obscenities, and the noise was deafening.
The walkways and walls were filthy, encrusted with dried excrement and there
was hardly a spot not covered by food
and trash. The few officers to be seen
were obViously tense, angry and frightened.
-continued on page 7.

A PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL.. I...IBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC.

Judge Halts Meddling
With Access to Clients
Elizabeth Alexander
Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr., of the
federal district court in Richmond, Virginia sharply reprimanded officials of the
troubled Mecklenburg Correctional Center in the course of granting the National Prison Project a preliminary injunction. The injunction ordered a stop to
practices at the super-maximum security
institution that the judge found violated
Mecklenburg inmates' constitutionally
protected right of access to the courts.
Since Mecklenburg's opening in
1977, the prison has been controversial.

rectional officers were fired and another
disciplined for abuse of inmates during a
shakedown. In another incident, in part
triggered by the July 26 events, inmates
took nine employees hostage.
The prison administration's reaction
to the unrest at the prison included a
decision to restrict lawyer access to in-

mates. After the new policies were implemented, most inmates seen by the
Prison Project staff had their hands
shackled to their waists during interviews.
Guards required the interview to be
conducted with the doors to the interviewing room open. New policies limited
the hours available for interviews and
the length of time for individual interviews. In addition, for all practical purposes, only one contact lawyer-client interview could take place at a time,
As a result of these new policies,
lawyers and paralegals from our office
who attempted~to interview Mecklenburg clients found that the eight-hour
.round trip from Washington to the prison produced, on the average, only two
Photo courtesy

of Richmond Newspapers.

Inc.

Following the hearing, Judge
Merhige decided that the Prison
Project lawyers had shown by
"conclusive evidence" that the new
policies were an exaggerated response by the Mecklenburg officials to their security concerns at
the prison.
Opponents, including the Prison Project,
charged that its Phase Program for troublesome inmates was an ill-conceived
travesty of behavioral modification principles. Critics predicted that the program would ultimately backfire because
the behavior of inmates assigned to the
institution would deteriorate. Concern
about the Mecklenburg program grew as
persistent complaints of guard brutality
circulated.
In 1981 we filed suit against Mecklenburg and in April of 1983, after extensive trial preparation, we signed a
settlement agreement with the Virginia
Department of Corrections. The agreement was designed to make major
changes in the prison's operations. By
the spring of 1984, the lawyers on the
case, Elizabeth Alexander, Alvin J. Bronstein, and local counsel Gerald Zerkin,
were preparing to return to court,
charging that the settlement agreement
had never been implemented.
Unfortunately, in May of 1984, six
Death Row prisoners escaped from
Mecklenburg, adding to the prison's considerable notoriety. During the summer
of 1984, the prison remained on lockdown and was exceptionally tense.
There were a number of incidents in
which force was used on prisoners. Following one incident on July 26, two cor2 SPRING 1985

Mecklenburg Correctional Center in Boydton, Virginia.

The National Prison Project of the
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
JAN ELVIN
Editor, NPP JOURNAL

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 331-0500

ALVIN j. BRONSTEIN
Executive Director

STEVEN NEY
Chief Staff Counsel

EDWARD I. KOREN
MARY E. McCLYMONT

URVASHI VAID
CLAUDIA WRIGHT

SHARON R. GORETSKY
Administrative Director and
Research Associate
BERYL JONES

DAN MANVILLE
Research Associate
LYNTHIA SIMONETTE

STAFF ATTORNEYS
ADjOA A. AIYETORO
ELIZABETH R. ALEXANDER

SUPPORT STAFF
BETSY BERNAT
Editorial Assistant
MELVIN GIBBONS

The National Prison Project is a tax-exempt foundation-funded project of the ACLU Foundation which
seeks to strengthen and protect the rights of adult and juvenile offenders; to improve overall conditions in
correctional facilities by using existing administrative, legislative and judicial channels; and to develop alternatives to incarceration.
The reprinting of JOURNAL material is encouraged with the stipulation that the National Prison Project
JOURNAL be credited with the reprint, and that a copy of the reprint be sent to the editor.
The JOURNAL is scheduled for publication quarterly by the National Prison Project. Materials and
suggestions are welcome.
The National Prison Project JOURNAL is designed by james True.

..-----------~._---_

..

_-

hours per day of actual visiting time with
inmate clients. Because of the new policies, we were hindered in preparing our
motion for contempt against the Mecklenburg officials for violation of the consent decree.
We filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction to halt the new policies. This
motion was heard by judge Merhige in a
full-day hearing on September 27. Following the hearing, judge Merhige decided that the Prison Project lawyers had
shown by "conclusive evidence" that
the new policies were an exaggerated
response by the Mecklenburg officials to
their security concerns at the prison.
Indeed, judge Merhige found that
security concerns were not the Mecklenburg officials' primary reason for imposing the new policies. Rather, a major
reason for the new policies was "a perceived public relations gimmick-an attempt to find a scapegoat of some kind"
for Mecklenburg's summer of troubles.
judge Merhige referred to the very
early prison case of Landman v. Royster,
in which he had found Virginia officials in
contempt of court for failing to stop

Judge Merhige remarked from the
bench that "the days of Landman
v. Royster ... are dark days in
the history of the Virginia Penal
System, and I thought they were
all over. I am not so sure now."

!

I
I

practices he had enjoined at the Virginia
State Penitentiary. judge Merhige remarked from the bench that "the days
of Landman v. Royster . . . are dark days
in the history of the Virginia Penal System, and I thought they were all over. I
am not so sure now."
judge Merhige then granted a preliminary injunction that gave our clients
virtually all the relief sought in the motion. The injunction requires that Mecklenburg allow each lawyer 5 V2 hours of
actual inmate interviewing time per day.
The 90-minute.limit on individual interviews was struck down, as was the limit
to one contact visit at a time. The order also required that client interviews
take place in a manner assuring confidentiality, and limited the circumstances under which an inmate could be shackled
during a legal interview.
With the granting of the preliminary
injunction. we have been able to proceed in our efforts to prove that Mecklenburg remains in violation of the settlement agreement. At the beginning of
December. we filed a motion for contempt, and a hearing on that motion is
tentatively set for hearing this spring. •

Ex-Offenders Find Doors
Closed On Voting Rights
Judy Goldberg
Nadine Marsh
One of the unexpected results of a
felony conviction in the United States is
the loss of a freedom most of us consider fundamental to participation in a democratic society-the right to vote. Every
state except Massachusetts. Vermont,
and Utah disfranchises persons upon
conviction of certain crimes. Because of
a confusing patchwork of state laws.
many ex-offenders find it difficult, if not
impossible, to regain access to the ballot
once they are released.
This practice is based on state constitutional provisions which remove voting privileges upon conviction for such
offenses as felonies. "infamous crimes".
treason, or crimes involving moral turpitude. Some states include a shopping list
of crimes. For example, the South
Carolina Constitution denies the vote
to:
Persons convicted of burglary, arson, obtaining goods or money under
false pretenses, perjury, forgery, robbery, bribery, adultery, bigamy, wifebeating, housebreaking, receiving stolen goods, breach of trust with fraudulent intent, fornication, sodomy, incest, assault with intent to ravish, larceny, murder, rape or crimes against
the election laws . . . unless such disqualification shall have been removed
by pardon.
In 1974 the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the
right to vote was fundamental, and subsequently required that disfranchisement
be based on a compelling state interest.
In Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24
(1974), the Court held that Section 2 of
the Fourteenth Amendment specifically
permitted states to deny the vote to
felons. This language which refers to
"Participation in rebellion or other
crime" now provides the constitutional
basis for the wholesale removal of the
ability to vote for tens of thousands of
persons per year.
The states' rationale for disfranchisement appears to be based on three
concerns: that it will prevent potential
voter fraud, that ex-offenders would
vote for interests subversive to society,
and that they have less interest in the
political process than other citizens.
These misgivings are based on the assumption that former felons are more
likely to misuse the ballot. or that they

are less concerned with the government
than other segments of society.
The premise is that leadership
should be deter~ined by people of
"sound" moral character; once a person
has committed a crime, she or he has
lost that character and must forfeit the
right to participate in the governing
process.
The barriers to the ballot erected
by many states convey the message that.
although free, the ex-offender is not yet
a welcome member of society.
There are three basic means of
rights restoration: I) pardons by Governors, 2) automatic restoration of rights
upon release or completion of parole,
and 3) a catch-all category of varying
practices best referred to as "other."
Twenty-six states now have some
form of automatic restoration of the
right to vote upon release or completion of parole and probation. I The conditions differ with state requirements.
Some states. such as Arizona and Louisiana, adjust procedures according to the
number of offenses committed by a
felon. Eight states wait for a specific
period before restoring rights. Six states
-Iowa, Maryland, New jersey, New
Mexico, Oklahoma and South Carolinaprovide restoration by a form of pardon
issued by the Governor.

The lack of any clear and reasonable nationwide standard on restoration of rights amounts to a violation of both the right to petition
government and the right to equal
protection.
The remaining states use methods
which vary in difficulty for the restoration of rights. These methods often involve evidence of good conduct or petitions presented to Boards of Pardons.

-continued on next page.
'Arizona, Arkansas. Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Hawaii, Idaho. Illinois, Indiana. Kansas. Louisiana.
Michigan. Minnesota. Montana. Nevada. New
York. North Carolina. North Dakota. Ohio.
Oregon. Pennsylvania. South Dakota. Washington. West Virginia. Wisconsin. Wyoming. Source:
Michele Dolfini, Study of the Process of Restoring
Civil Rights to Ex-Felons in the Commonwealth of

Virginia. 1984.

II

11. .

.s.p.R'.N.G.1.9.85_3

_

-continued from previous page.

judges, registrars, etc. Two statesRhode Island and Mississippi-still have
draconian laws requiring a vote of the
legislature. Mississippi's law states:
Section 253. The legislature may,
by a two-thirds vote of both houses,
of all members elected, restore the
right of suffrage to any person disqualified by reasons of crime; but the
reasons therfor shall be spread upon
the journal$, and the vote shall be by
yeas and nays.

An examination of the procedures
used by the Commonwealth of Virginia
provides some indication of the scope
and difficulty of the restoration problem. Each year Virginia removes voting
rights from 750 felons who had formerly been registered to vote. At the same
time the state releases roughly 3,000
felons from prisons, and of that number
only 200, or 6%, have their rights restored.
Virginia's first disfranchising provision, enacted in 1830, barred those convicted of an "infamous offense." The
current Constitution disfranchises all
persons convicted of felonies unless the
4 SPRING 1985

The barriers to the ballot erected
by many states convey the message that, although free, the exoffender is not yet a welcome
member of society.
Governor restores their right to vote.
The restoration process requires that
the ex-offender provide:
•
a list of all convictions, with date,
court and sentence;
•
certified copies of all conviction orders;
•
certified copies of any term of probation, parole, or order reducing
the sentence;
•
the name and address of last parole
officer;
•
a letter from the parole officer;
three letters of reference;
•
proof that all fines, restitutions and
•
court costs have been paid.
This process is cumbersome and
very expensive. The practice of withholding civil rights because of financial
obligations negatively affects rehabilita-

tion efforts in many ways. It is a heavy,
sometimes unbearable burden. Former
felons often struggle on the job market
to get and maintain low paying jobs.
Many of those who had court appointed
counsel were declared indigent in order
to receive it and it is highly unlikely their
financial status improved while they
were incarcerated. In addition, many are
never notified that they owe court and
counsel costs, so their bills increase as
interest charges grow. Most unfairly,
this repayment prerequisite means those
better off will find it easier to get back
into the mainstream while the poor and
uneducated will have considerably more
difficulty regaining citizenship.
The process clearly needs reform.
Recently the Governor's Commission to
Improve Voter Registration in Virginia
recommended streamlining the process
and taking into account indigency or
good faith efforts to repay the debt. It
is not known whether these suggestions
will be acted upon.
The lack of any clear and reasonable
nationwide standard on restoration of
rights amounts to a violation of both the
-continued on page 5.

Florida Jails
-continued from front page.

In late 1981, we obtained a precedent-setting consent decree against the
Florida Department of Corrections requiring that the Department take affirmative action to upgrade the conditions
in the jails in conformity with state jail
standards.
In February, 1984, we returned for
one of our periodic compliance tours of
seven of the jails and were encouraged
by the progress in certain counties:
• Some counties had installed fire
escapes, smoke detectors, fire
alarms and other life safety equipment; polyurethane mattresses and
padding had been removed;
• Staff had been hired in some jails to
provide around the clock
supervision;
• Several jails were screening incoming
inmates and providing some ongoing medical care;
• Some jails have hired nurses and are
keeping medical records and referring prisoners to outside facilities
for medical treatment;
•
Parking lots in some facilities are
being converted into outdoor exercise areas so that prisoners are
allowed some out of cell time;
-continued from page 4.
right to petition government and the
right to equal protection. Numerous
organizations involved in corrections
have called for repeal of laws depriving
convicted persons of civil rights. Progress has been slow. Between 1978 and
1984 only 4 states were added to the
list of those which automatically restore
rights upon completion of sentence or
parole.
Disfranchisement, one of the many
severe consequences of conviction for a
felony, is an inconsistent, excessive and
disproportionate punishment. The
blanket imposition of the loss of basic
civil rights c1eaf'lly has no legal merit nor
does it meet any community need, while
it severely hinders efforts by ex-offenders to reconstruct their lives. The
complexities in the applications process
and the demands it makes on former
felons, particularly repayment of debt,
are excessive. While to deny former
felons their civil rights may provide the
public another means of retaliation upon
persons who have deviated from the
norm, it defeats the positive aims
toward which the justice system should
strive. •

judy Goldberg is the Associate Director of
the ACLU of Virginia. Ms. Marsh is an
intern in that office.

Some jails are utilizing community
mental health facilities;
• Overcrowding has been reduced in
several jails through increased use of
release on recognizance and lower
bail schedules.
This is not to say that Florida's jails
are now constitutional, or that they
have even entered the twentieth
century. The court order is still not
being complied with in many respects
and we are in the process of filing for
supplementary relief. Many of the same
barbaric practices continue: prisoners
are shackled in leg irons while inside
their cells; many juveniles are left
unsupervised; visiting is still being conducted through tiny holes in doors;
entire floors are left without staff
supervision; there is no daily sick call. In
one jail we even found the minister
doubling as the barber (better than the
barber doubling as the doctor!).
Nonetheless, Florida seems to be
moving in the right direction as a result
of our lawsuit.
•

Statewide Approach
Presents Challenge
Like most states, Florida has at least
one jail in each of its counties-67 at
last count, and in addition, it has more
than I50 city and municipal lockups. Because the conditions were generally acknowledged to be deplorable, the problem we addressed was how to improve
conditions throughout the state without
the incredibly expensive and time consuming job of suing each jail separately.
While individual jail cases have led to
significant improvements in local conditions, given the hundreds of jails in the
state and the limited resources at our
disposal, we thought that a statewide approach might represent a dramatic
breakthrough.
The legal stumbling block was to
find a way of linking all of the separately
run jails into a statewide class action.
Unlike a state prison system, which is
run by a state level Department of Corrections, the fact that the jails were operated independently by dozens of local
governments presented a difficult obstacle to a statewide lawsuit.
Fortunately a legal handle was within
our grasp. In Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d
757 (5th Cir. 1977), the Court of Appeals found that Florida Secretary of
Corrections, Louis Wainwright, was
liable for causing unconstitutional conditions in the Duval County Oacksonville)
jail, by virtue of a state law which gave
him supervisory responsibility over local
jails. That statute made Wainwright responsible for establishing minimum standards for jail conditions, inspecting jails
for compliance with the standards, and
enforcing the standards by filing suit in

state court either to remove prisoners
from noncomplying jails or to close the
jail. The Court noted that when a state
official's violation of state law "causes
the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment, a federal cause of action arises
under § 1983."
The logical sequel to Miller which
we developed was Arias v. Wain wright I , a
class action against Wainwright alleging
that he was responsible for causing constitutional violations throughout the
state's jails arising from his failure to
carry out the sta~utory obligations outlined above.

Prosecuting Arias,
Hurdle by Hurdle
In prosecuting Arias, we had to
overcome a number of legal and factual
obstacles.
First, we faced the question of class
certification. The defendants claimed
that there was no typical or common
claim to link the plaintiffs and therefore
there was no bona fide class. We responded that while it was true that the
jails were separately run and that particular conditions varied from jail to jail,
there was a common thread which
linked all of the inmates and jails, namely
the state-run inspection and enforcement scheme. Thus, the claim common
to all inmates was Wainwright's alleged
failure to carry out his supervisory duties. As it turned out, Wainwright later
consented to class certification, apparently for reasons of convenience. Since
he was being sued in a number of local
jail cases and was seeking to avoid having
to appear and defend in different forums, he moved to stay those cases
based on his status as a defendant in the
statewide case. By certifying our case as
a class, he was able to ward off some of
those other individual claims against
him. 2
A second hurdle was Wainwright's
claim that since he didn't actually run
the jails, he shouldn't be sued alone and
that unless the counties were joined as
-continued on next page.
'We were assisted in Arias by local counsel Randall
Berg and Rod Petrey from the Florida justice
Institute, William Sheppard, a jacksonville civil
rights lawyer, by the Washington law firm of
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Lynn Bregman,
Stuart Taylor and Ted Killory) and AI Hadeed, a
Gainesville civil rights lawyer.
2The ACLU of Texas along with the National
Prison Project is involved in a similar statewide
jail case against the Texas Commission on jail
Standards. The district court granted statewide
class certification status over the vigorous opposition of the Attorney General's office. Bush v.
Viterna, Civ. Act. No. A-SO-CA-411 (W.D. Tex).
The Magistrate recently recommended that the
district court deny the defendants' motions to
dismiss and/or abstain.

SPRING 1985 5

1

-continued from previous page.
indispensable party defendants the case
should be dismissed. We successfully
countered by pointing out that the relief
we were seeking would run solely
against Wainwright-an injunction requiring him to carry out his standard setting,
inspection and enforcement duties.
While the counties might be affected by
the lawsuit as a result of increased
enforcement activities, for example, by
being required to install fire safety
equipment, this would not require every
county to be named as a defendant.
They could protect their interests by
defending against enforcement actions in
state court and by utilizing Florida's
Administrative Procedure Act to participate in rule-making proceedings. The
court agreed with us and denied the motion to dismiss. Any injunction, the
court noted, would have "no greater financial impact on the local governments
than they should ordinarily expect ...
provided ,~he facilities are lawfully operated . . . .
Another serious issue involved the
extent of proof. Would we have to
demonstrate that the conditions in each
of the jails were unconstitutional? If so,
there would be little advantage to filing
one case rather than hundreds. Or,
could we proceed by proving a general
pattern and practice of violations?
Because we settled the case prior
to trial, we didn't get a definitive ruling,
but the Magistrate did indicate that it
would not be necessary to prove violations in every jail. In any event, from
the evidence we accumulated during
depositions of the inspectors and review

The legal stumbling block was to
find a way of linking all of the
separately run jails into a
statewide action.
of their own records, it was easy to
show that there were widespread violations-e.g., many jails did not have a
contract with a medical doctor, did not
prOVide incoming medical or mental
health screening, did not provide inmates
with exercise. And Wainwright could
hardly deny that he had failed to
exercise his enforcement duties since he
had never sued a single jail; he had in
fact made an intentional decision not to
resort to court proceedings to enforce
the law.
Another critical issue arose when
Wainwright claimed that the jails were
off limits to our expert witnesses. He
claimed that he lacked authority to allow
our experts into the jails because the
sheriffs, not the state of Florida, were
6 SPRING 1985

This is not to say that Florida's
jails are now constitutional, or
that they have even entered the
twentieth century.
in charge of the jails. We argued that
under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Wainwright had sufficient "control" over the jails to allow
access by our experts. This control, we
asserted, derived from Wainwright's
power under state law to have his own
inspectors inspect the jails. We simply
wanted our experts to stand in the
shoes of his inspectors who could visit
the jails at any time. The Court disagreed with our analysis but said we had
a remedy available, namely to bring separate proceedings against the jails for the
limited purpose of access, which is allowed pursuant to Rule 34(c). That is
what we did, simply by filing petitions
for access, and the counties consented
to the expert tours.
After receiving the favorable opinion from the Court denying all of Wainwright's motions to dismiss, and following extensive document reviews and
tours of the jails which demonstrated
that our allegations had a strong factual
basis, Wainwright initiated settlement
discussions. We finally reached agreement on a consent decree which reqUired Wainwright to carry out thorough and complete inspections of each
jail at least twice each year and required
him to "vigorously, promptly, effectively and thoroughly" exercise his enforcement responsibilities by taking non-complying counties into court. We put some
teeth into that obligation by requiring
Wainwright to initiate court action within seven days after he was notified of
the existence of an "aggravated violation," that is, one that "appears to
pose a substantial and immediate danger
to life, health or safety."
The inadequacy of the jail standards
presented one of the most difficult aspects of the case, and we spent dozens
of hours negotiating with Wainwright to
resolve it. Ultimately we were able to
upgrade the standards in key respects:
increased space standards were set to
reduce overcrowding; some medical
screening was instituted, as well as daily
sick call, and comprehensive medical
care; compliance with fire safety and
public health codes was required along
with improved classification of inmates.
Despite these significant improvements,
no agreement was reached on other important issues such as exercise, time out
of cell, contact visiting, phone calls and
new construction. 3 Therefore, one area
3Wainwright recently promulgated changes in the

of the original complaint, the adequacy
of the standards, remains open for possible further negotiation, litigation or
both. In this part of the case as well as
others, the Florida Sheriffs Association
played an important behind the scenes
role. While not named as defendants,
the Sheriffs perceived the case as a vehicle for upgrading the jails by providing
more resources and attention from
county government, and helped us make
some improvements. Unfortunately, but
not surprisingly, they never went as far
as we had hop~d.
Since the decree was entered, we
have begun to see gradual improvement
in the conditions of some of Florida's
jails. The inspection staff has been
increased, and the inspectors are conducting somewhat more thorough
inspections. On the critical issue of fire
safety, Wainwright, under pressure from
us, has worked out arrangements to
have the State Fire Marshall inspect
county jails. And for the first time,
Wainwright has exercised his enforcement powers by bringing nine counties
into state court because of serious jail
violations. Some counties are responding
to this pressure by hiring staff and developing alternatives to incarceration (release on recognizance, bonding, and prqbation). While we advocate further
development of less costly alternatives
to incarceration, or renovation of existing jail space, some counties unfortunately are contemplating expensive new
construction as the way to meet minimal
standards. •

Death Penalty
Information Packet
Update Available
The Institute for Southern Studies
has released the second edition of its
"Death Penalty Information Packet."
This new edition has been updated, revised, and redesigned.
It contains I I fact sheets, up-todate statistics, and answers to new
questions.
The cost of each packet is $2, plus
50 cents each for shipping and handling.
The cost is $1.50 per packet for orders
of 10 or more.
Send check payable to the Institute
for Southern Studies, P.O. Box 531,
Durham, N.C. 27702.

regulations requiring, for the first time, two
hours of outdoor exercise per week. and "reasonable" access to a telephone.

Photo courtesy Rhode fslond Department

of Corrections.

"Old Max" as it looked in May of 1978. As a result of over seven years of National Prison Project litigation, conditions such as this have been eliminated.

Rhode Island's Prisons
-continued from front page.
Rhode Island is one of the few
states that has a unified detention system where the state is responsible for
holding pre-trial detainees. There are no
local jails. As we walked through the
oldest and darkest part of "Old Max"
where the men awaiting trial were kept
in their filthy cells most of the day, I
told one of the judge's law clerks (who
was, literally, gagging) that he was witnessing the presumption of innocence on
a firsthand basis.
On August 10, 1977, Judge Pettine
issued his opinion and order in the case.'
'Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F.Supp. 956 (D.R.1.
1977).

After pages of factual findings which detailed the filth, "maddening" noise levels, fire hazards, antiquated and unhealthy plumbing, heating and ventilation,
and cockroach, rat and mouse infestation, he concluded that "Maximum presents an imminent public health, fire and
safety hazard." He found that "staff
[were] so accustomed to conditions of
deterioration that they had become inured to what they lived with," and, that
"on the basis of living conditions alone,
Maximum is clearly unfit for human habitation. "
The court also found that, as a direct consequence of the "failure of the
classification system," the enforced idleness" and the lack of staff control,
"rampant violence and endemic fear of

violence" existed in the prison system,
and that the prison officials had "knowingly and recklessly permitted a reign of
terror to develop and exist." Inmates
were "forced to live in constant fear of
violence and sexual assault." Based upon
evidence presented at the trial, Judge
Pettine found: "A study of reported incidents of violence during 1975 and
1976 indicates approximately 155 assaults, rapes and major fights per year;
330 other incidents of violence, personal
harm to inmates, or mutinous acts; 35
fires; and over 400 reported drug violations per year."
The court went on to detail other
gross constitutional violations at other
facilities and in medical and mental health
-continued on next page.
SPRING 1985 7

n

..

s

--Continued from previous page.
care throughout the system. Finally,
Judge Pettine entered a detailed remedial
order which required, inter olio: that the
Rhode Island authorities house pre-trial
detainees separate from sentenced prisoners, that the maximum security prison
be closed within a year, that all prisoners be accommodated in conditions
meeting minimum standards, and
that a special master be appointed,
empowered to monitor compliance.
Seven years later the old maximum
security prison in Rhode Island remains
in use, although not the whole building
and with many fewer prisoners. Until
January of 1984, the Department of
Corrections was still subject to regular
inspection by a special master and he can
still be called upon by the court on an
as-needed basis. As recently as the summer of 1983, the Rhode Island Governor and the Director of Corrections
were held in contempt of earlier decrees. Court proceedings still continue
. on the basis that some conditions for
prisoners remain below the constitutional minima set by the court in 1977.
There have been some dramatic
changes, however. The Director of
Corrections in 1977 (to whom the
judge presumably referred in his opinion
when he stated that "there is a complete absence of effective leadership or
management capability") has been dismissed by the Governor on the recommendation of the special master. Prior
to 1977 there was virtually no written
administrative policy; now there are
agreed procedures and standards for almost every aspect of the prison regime
with copies of manuals furnished to prisoners. Two entirely new prisons have
been built and brought into use-one for
pre-trial detainees and a small (96 bed)
high security facility-and a substantial
work release center opened. There has
not been a serious incident of violence
at "Old Max" in more than three years.
Had the population of Rhode
Island's prison system remained at the
1977 level, the hundred year old maximum security prison mght have been
closed, if not within the year ordered by
the court then at least by 1982, when
the two new facilities opened. But by
1982 Rhode Island's average daily prison
population had risen by over fifty percent and has since exceeded the 1977
level by over ninety percent.
During the period since 1977 the
court has held back from drastic remedies. The deadlines originally ordered for
the closure of "Old Max" and for the
segregation of detainees were repeatedly extended by Judge Pettine. Despite
written reports from the master to the
effect that the defendants were dragging
their feet because they were confident
8 SPRING 1985

,

The old law of an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. .
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Death Penalty
Is Still Wrong
L.e.

Dorsey

On December 5, 1984, Melvin died
on an operating table in a Dallas, Texas
hospital from a shotgun blast to the
stomach. He had argued with Anderson
Price, a 67 year old man, who grabbed
his shotgun. Reports from the Crimes
Against Persons Division of the Dallas
Police Department said Melvin struggled

with Price for the gun, and was shot
during the strusgle. Because of the ongoing investigation, no additional information was available. Oh, yes, the body
was at the city morgue and could be
claimed by the next of kin.
Melvin Louis Braison was born June
20, 1948, to Mr. and Mrs. Leroy

"the court will not step in and order
them to close the facility down forthwith," the judge was unwilling to decree
measures which would, in effect, compel
the release of large numbers of prisoners. Deadlines for closure were extended for various reasons: I) pending the
outcome of a state referendum in 1980
on a special bond issue to pay for the
expansion of the new high security unit
(it was overwhelmingly rejected by the
voters); 2) awaiting the opening of a
prison under construction, or 3) on the
basis of reports from the master indicating that although conditions were not
fully in compliance with agreed standards, they were greatly improved.
For many years the administrators
believed that they were in a hopelessly
unworkable situation. Despite an influx
of funds for the first two years after
the court decree in 1977, they began
thereafter to receive only minimal financial support from the legislature partly
because this was a period of serious financial problems for the state. The dramatic rise in the number of persons
committed by the courts, the product
of tougher bail conditions and sentencing, made it totally unreasonable from
their standpoint to close "Old Max."
They saw themselves as sandwiched between a legislature unwilling to increase
the budget, sentencers increasingly committing offenders to custody, and counsel for the prisoners pressing for full implementation of an aging decree which
the administrators perceived to have
been overtaken by events.
Beginning in 1981, more funds did
become available to the prison officials
enabling them to plan, for the first time,
to try to comply with the court decree.
And, shortly thereafter, they began to
work with counsel for the prisoners on
a cooperative, rather than adversarial,
basis with both sides haVing a common

objective of a constitutional prison system. Matters changed even more substantially in 1983 when the voters approved a state bond referendum which
gave the Department of Corrections
$5.5 million dollars to completely renovate and update "Old Max." After a
series of hearings in 1984, the court
created a new timetable for bringing
that facility into full compliance with its .
earlier decrees and also established a reporting mechanism to ensure that the
various facilities did not fall below constitutional requirements because of population pressures.
I toured "Old Max" recently with
the same environmental health expert
who had testified that the facility was
unfit for human habitation in 1977. He
found it difficult to believe that it was
the same place. In addition to the work
that had been done on fire safety, lighting, plumbing, electrical wiring, ventilation and other physical conditions, the
cellblock areas were spotlessly clean and
there were no prisoners there. They
were all out of the housing area, busily
engaged in some activity-recreation, industries, vocational training or educational programs. The Lieutenant who escorted us, and who had been at the
prison since before 1977, commented
on what a relaxed place it now was to
work in and how easy it was to get
along with prisoners. The Warden said:
"We used to treat them like animals and
they behaved like animals. Now they
have a decent place to live and work and
they behave like decent men." Most important, prisoners regard "Old Max" as
the preferred housing in the Rhode Island system.
Litigation may not be the perfect
vehicle for social change, but seven
years of judicial involvement in this
state's prison system has made a difference. •

Braison. He was the youngest of three
brothers born to the union. He was
Black, male, poorly educated, and was
employed at the time of his death. He
had travelled to Dallas almost three
years earlier, looking for work and a
new beginning. He'd left behind a wife
and two daughters.
Born in the Mississippi Delta on a
government agricultural experiment
farm, he came into a world of poverty
and difficulty. When his father came to
fetch his maternal grandmother to care
for the mother, new baby and the two
toddlers, he told her that both mother
and child had nearly died. He'd taken a
long time to be born. The mid-wife finally laid him in his mother's arms in the
three room shack, which was provided
for good tractor drivers.
Melvin, even as a baby, had spirit. He
would never become one of the bowed,
cowed, broken-spirited Black men who
shuffled along the dirt roads of the Delta. He stood up for himself.
Melvin had a terrific sense of humor, and any family gathering that Melvin attended was sure to be spiked with
laughter. He enjoyed making people
laugh. And he enjoyed family gatherings.
The big, noisy clan that he was part of
got together often, and he managed to
get his share of attention, laughs, and
sometimes, other family members' goat.
He was a favorite of the younger kids
who never took him seriously as a
grown-up. "Melvin, come and play with
us," they'd call out to him. And he'd
make a serious face and scowl: "Don't
you know I'm grown?" Often the scowl
would collapse into smiles or laughter.
Melvin was generous. If he had only
one dime and someone needed the
dime, he'd give it to you and never think
about it. If he could help you do something, he would.
Melvin had a temper; a quick temper that would appear in an instant, accompanied by loud cusses and threats.
But he was unable to maintain that anger

No Comment
Former Texas death row inmate
Charles Brooks complained on june
18, 1982 about the loss of his watch
and ring. He submitted a grievance
asking that they be returned or that
he be reimbursed for their cost. The
response, dated December 14, 1982,
reads: "Charlie Brooks was executed
7 December 1982. Grievance is
moot."
From the Ninth Monitor's Report,
September 13, 1983, Ruiz v. Estelle.

very long or to hold a grudge. He had
been known to collapse in a fit of giggles
in the middle of threatening to "beat
your a--." Or to go and sit down quietly
if one of his elder relatives told him to.
Melvin drank, and liquor brought
out the anger. At home in Indianola,
Mississippi and later in Memphis, Tennessee, when he had too much to drink and
began to hassle people, someone would
simply take him home or find a relative
to come and get him.
His family thinks that if he'd been at
home, he'd still be alive.
Melvin's body was flown back to
Mississippi and buried at a little church in
the country not too far from where he
was born, went to school, played,
dreamed, and suffered the agonies of
racism and poverty. The family of poor
people put him away nicely. They say he
wore a smile on his still youthful face.
Melvin was my older sister's youngest son. We grew up together, although
I'm older. I nursed, bathed and took
care of him when he was a baby and later, when my oldest child was born, he
returned the favor.
Melvin understood why I worked
with prisoners and was opposed to the
death penalty, and supported my work.

He had felt the harsh hand of the law as
a teenager, for truancy and fighting. He
later served some months in prison for
assault. He knew about the fear and
horror of the inside world.
I'm often asked by reporters and
proponents of the death penalty how I
would feel about the death penalty if
someone I loved was killed. And I've always answered honestly, that I didn't
know how I'd feel. Well now I know.
The telephone rang in the middle of
the night in the dingy, old, walk-up rent
controlled apartl"Qent building where I
live. Melvin's brother, Leroy, was on
the other end of the line. He told me
Melvin was dead. He gave me the details, the detective's number and the
number at the morgue. We called the
rest of the family with our awful message.
I felt dead inside. I waited for the
anger to come, but it didn't come. I
waited for the tears to flow, but it was
as if I was suddenly dead-dried up-inside. Hours later, I went to bed and
waited for sleep, which didn't come
either.
In the next hectic 72 hours, I felt
angry, but not at the faceless old man
-continued on page 10.

Information on Jails Available to Media
Do you know?
•
7 million people pass through our
local jails each year?
•
10.7 percent of all jails are under
court order to improve conditions?
•
the suicide rate for adults in jail is
16 times greater than for the general population; most of those who
kill themselves are drunk at the
time?
•
the average cost of housing one
person in jail for a year is $14,000?
•
the cost of building one new jail cell
is between $50,000 and $70,OOO?
A new information packet, Covering Your Jail: Resources for the
Media, presents the facts about 14
major jail issues. Prepared by the
National Coalition for jail Reform and
distributed to 4,000 newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations across
the country, the packet is also being
used by county commissioners, sheriffs,
and local planners.
This two-color, glossy paper packet
with up-to-date statistics and photographs covers the following topics:
What Is a jail?
Who Is in jail?

What Does a jail Cost?
jail Crowding
jails Operated by Private Companies
jail Conditions and Standards
Alternatives to jail
Legal Issues
Contributing to Solutions: the Community and the Criminal justice
System
In addition, there are sections on
women in jail, juveniles, the mentally ill,
drunk drivers, and suicides in jail.
The packet is being used by nonmedia people to:
•
obtain more positive press coverage
of the jail;
•
help jail administrators deal with the
press;
•
train new jail staff on issues;
•
educate elected officials about their
jail;
•
help judges, police, prosecutors and
others to understand jail problems;
•
educate community leaders about
jail issues.
Copies of the packet are available
for $ I0 each including postage and
handling from the National Coalition for
jail Reform, 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite
1200, Washington, D.C. 20036, telephone 202/296-8630. •
SPRING 1985 9

Photo by Philip B. Toft. Jr.

-<ontinued from page 9.

who had ended Melvin's laughter, but at
the poverty that made some of us
choose between going to the funeral or
sending money to help with the funeral
arrangements. Why do people have to
choose in these crucial family times?
I felt pain when a friend, whom I'd
called to ask about agency help to get
the body home, asked me, in all sincerity, why were we trying to bring him
home? She really didn't know that we
couldn't leave Melvin in a strange place
where his spirit would be restless and
lonely. Loneliness is terrible.
I felt powerless as my younger sister turned to me to understand how he
died. Who would kill Melvin? Why? It
was terribly important for her to know.
I kept trying to explain that to the Division of Crimes Against Persons, but they
didn't understand Emma and the shock
of this violence to her gentle spirit.
They couldn't give any more information.
I think about Mr. Anderson Price
and wonder what he is like. Was this his
first killing? Was he traumatized? Is he
alone in a jail cell, or is he back at
home, smoking a pipe, or rocking in his
favorite chair or doing whatever he was
doing before he pulled the trigger on
December 5? My mind won't let me feel
anger towards him. Perhaps it's the social work training, or that I know how
frightened senior citizens are of young
males.
We don't know whether Mr. Price
is Black or White, and although one witness has contacted the family to tell us
that Melvin was murdered in cold blood,
we know that we will never know what
happened.
And what would Melvin say should
happen to Mr. Price if I could ask him? I
don't know. I never thought to ask him.
I would imagine, knowing Melvin's philosophical nature, that he would say,
"Now L.e., what good would killing
him do? That'd just be two people dead
then." And thinking about his wisdom,
he'd laugh o~ loud.
I now know what the answer is the
next time someone who believes in executions asks: "How would you feel if it
was someone you loved?" I will answer:'
dead and dry inside. And I know with a
certainty from which fate has removed
the last crucible of doubt, that the death
penalty is wrong, and that executing Mr.
Price won't bring back Melvin's laughter.

L.c. Dorsey is a member of the D.C.
Coalition Against the Death Penalty and is
on the National Prison Project Steering
Committee. She is the former director of
the Mississippi branch of the Southern Coalition on Jails and Prisons.

I

10 SPRING "85

Inmates jam bullpens in this overcrowded Essex County Jail in Newark, New Jersey.

National Prison Project
Status Report Released
The National Prison Project has
released its most recent "Status
Report" on prison conditions. The
report reveals the crisis the United
States is facing in its prisons due to
overcrowding. Studies done on prison
problems conducted since the 1972
Attica uprising show that the root
causes of most prison disturbances, as
well as the current crisis in corrections,
are overcrowding and unconstitutional
conditions.
Thirty-four states are operating
their prisons under court orders because
of violations of the constitutional rights
of prisoners. Those states are: Ari-

zona,' California, Colorado,' Connecticut,' Delaware,' Florida,' Georgia,'
Idaho,' Illinois,' Indiana,' Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky,' Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,' Mississippi, Missouri,' Nevada,'
New Hampshire,' New Mexico,'
Ohio,' Oklahoma,' Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island,' South Carolina,' South
Dakota,' Tennessee,' Texas, Utah, Virginia,' Washington,' West Virginia,'
Wisconsin'. In addition, Washington,
D.e. (jail), Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands are under court order. (Court
•Asterisks indicate states where the ACLU is
involved in the litigation .

J'

orders involving jails are not listed with
the exception of Washington, D.C.)
Each of these orders has been issued in
connection with total conditions of confinement and/or overcrowding which
resulted in prisoners being subjected to
cruel and unusual punishment in violation
of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. There are four more
states under court order than there
were one year ago.
Conditions of confinement are presently being challenged in ten states:
Hawaii,' Massachusetts, North Carolina,

South Carolina,' Washington, Arizona,'
Illinois,' Michigan,' Pennsylvania, Virginia·. Four of these states, Arizona,'
South Carolina,' Washington' and Virginia,' already have one or more prisons
under court order.
Alvin J. Bronstein, Executive Director of the Prison Project, said, "Once
again, our annual survey shows the continuing and critical problem of overcrowding and uncivilized conditions in
our prisons, when two-thirds of our
states have been found to be in violation
of one of the most fundamental of our

QTY. COST

The National Prison
Project JOURNAL,
$IS/yr. $2/yr. to prisoners.
Back issues, $1 ea.

The Prisoners' Assistance
Directory, the result of a national survey, identifies and
describes various organizations
and agencies that provide assistance to prisoners. Lists national, state, and local organizations and sources of assistance
including legal, library, medical,
educational, employment and
financial aid. 6th edition, published January 1985. Paperback,
$1 5 prepaid from NPP.
Offender Rights Litigation:
Historical and- Future Developments. A book chapter
by Alvin J. Bronstein published
in the Prisoners' Rights
Sourcebook (1980). Traces
the history of the prisoners'
rights movement and surveys
the state of the law on various
prison issues (many case citations). 24 pages, $2.50 prepaid
from NPP.
Fill out and send with check payable to
The National Prison Project
1346 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20036

constitutional rights, the right to be free
from cruel and unusual punishment."
The National Prison Project does
not, however, support construction of
additional prison space as a simple
answer to the overcrowding problem.
We urge the formulation of a national,
long-range criminal justice policy which
would include,. among other things, the
use of probation, community service
sentencing and victim restitution as alternative forms of punishment.
Copies of this report are available
from the Prison 'Project for $3.00. 11III

QTY. COST

The National Prison Project
Status Report lists each state
presently under court order, or
dealing with pending litigation in
the entire state prison system
or major institutions in the state
which deal with overcrowding
and/or the total conditions of
confinement. (No jails except
District of Columbia). Periodically updated. $3 prepaid from
NPP.
Bibliography of Women in
Prison Issues.' A bibliography
of all the information on this
subject contained in our files.
Includes information on abortion, behavior modification programs, lists of other bibliographies, Bureau of Prison
policies affecting women in
prison, juvenile girls, women in
jail, the problem of incarcerated mothers, health care, and
general articles and books. $5
prepaid from NPP.
A Primer For Jail Litigators
is a detailed manual with practical suggestions for jail litigation.
It includes chapters on legal
analysis, the use of expert witnesses, class actions, attorneys'
fees, enforcement, discovery,
defenses' proof, remedies, and
many practical suggestions.
Relevant case citations and correctional standards. Ist edition,
February I984. 180 pages,
paperback, $1 5 prepaid from
NPP.
NAME

Prisoners' Rights 1979.
Course handbooks prepared
for the Prisoners' Rights National Training Programs held
January-March 1979. Includes ",',/' >./
articles, legal analyses, and litigation forms. Prepared by the
staff of the National Prison
Project. Available in paperback.
$35 per set, from the Practising "-/, / ,,,,'
Law Institute, 810 Seventh
Ave., New York, N.Y. 10019.
2 Vols., 1163 pages. This set,
plus Representing Prisoners
(below), can be purchased for
$40.

I/'_/'_V'_/'_/'

Representing Prisoners. The
course handbook prepared for
the Prisoners' Rights National
Training Programs held in June
and July I98 I. Includes articles,
legal analyses, and litigation
forms. Prepared by the staff of
the National Prison Project.
Available in paperback from the
Practising Law Institute, 810
Seventh Ave., New York, N.Y.
10019. I Vol., 980 pages. $35.

ACLU Handbook, The
Rights of Prisoners. A guide
to the legal rights of prisoners,
pre-trial detainees, in questionand-answer format with case
citations. Bantam Books, April
1983. Paperback, $3.95 from
ACLU, 132 West 43rd St.,
New York, N.Y. 10036. Free
to prisoners.
_

ADDRESS
. CITY, STATE, ZIP

_

SPRING 1985 II

l

IIIIEI
The following are major developments in the Prison Project's litigation
program since October 15, 1984. Further details of any of the listed cases
may be obtained by writing the Project.

recommends that the court deny the
various motions to dismiss the case filed
by the defendants, and validated our
theory of supervisory ability.

Canterino v. Wilson - This case chalBlack v. Ricketts - This case challenges
conditions and practices at a special large
segregation unit at the Arizona State
Prison. All attempts at negotiating a settlement broke down after a major
shake-up in the Department of Corrections. We conducted extensive discovery for a trial which commenced on
February 5, 1985.

Brown v. Lar1don - This case challenged conditions and practices at the
super-maximum security prison (Mecklenburg Correctional Center) in Virginia.
In early December, we filed a motion
seeking to hold state officials in contempt for failing to comply with a consent decree that was entered in 1983.
Shortly thereafter, the Director of Corrections resigned and a new Director
was appointed who immediately announced sweeping changes at this facility. We are presently reviewing these
proposed changes which would appear
to accomplish all of the original objectives of the litigation.
Bush v. Viterna - This is a statewide
class action challenging certain actions of
the Texas Commission on Jail Standards
in regulating the conditions and practices
in all of the county jails in Texas. In
December, we received a favorable
opinion from the Magistrate in which he

National Prison Project
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 402
Washington, DC 20036

12 SPRING 1985

lenged the totality of conditions and a
degrading behavior modification program
called the "levels" system at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for
Women. Following up several earlier
favorable decisions we determined in
November that the level system is no
longer operating at the facility. On January 9, we received a favorable opinion
on our motion for an interim award for
attorneys' fees and costs.

Duran v. Anaya - This is a statewide
prison conditions case in New Mexico.
The Special Master issued a series of
reports in November and December
finding the defendants in non-compliance
with portions of the earlier court orders
and we began preparing for pOSSible
formal compliance hearings.
Flittie v. Solem - This case challenges
conditions at the South Dakota Penitentiary and, in response to an earlier favorable ruling, the defendants filed their
plans for correcting various deficiencies
in November.
Nelson v. Leeke - In this statewide
prison conditions case in South Carolina,
all the relevant state agencies approved
the proposed settlement agreement,
including funding, and the agreement was
formally signed on January 8, 1985.

Palmigiano .v. Garrahy - This is the
statewide Rhode Island prison case in
which we earlier obtained a ruling
declaring the entire system unconstitutional. After a series of negotiating conferences, the c2>urt on November 19
entered a new remedial order setting
forth new compliance and reporting
schedules in the light of the substantial
compliance efforts made by the defendants to date.
Pugh and James v. Britton - As a
result of recent inspection tours, we
concluded that the state was in substantial compliance with earlier court orders
in the state-wide Alabama prison case.
Accordingly, an agreement was reached
and incorporated in an order on
November 27 ending active court supervision of the case. However, the Implementation Committee will continue
monitoring for compliance for another
18 months and the court's jurisdiction
can be reactivated upon application during that period.
Spear v. Ariyoshi - This is a recently
filed case which challenges conditions
and practices at the men's and women's
prisons in Hawaii. During November,
December and January we conducted six
expert tours of the facilities as we began
full-scale discovery in the case.
Witke v. Crowl - In this case, which
challenged conditions and practices at
the Women's Prison in Idaho, a notice
to the plaintiff class of the final settlement agreement was delivered on
November 20 and we anticipate court
approval by this printing. •

Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage

PAID
Washington. D.C.
Permit No. 5248

~C"39