Corrupt Policing During the Arrest of Efrén Paredes, Jr. (Part 1 of 2)

by Dr. John Masterson

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Michigan State University

"Almost all police lie about whether they violated the Constitution in order to convict guilty defendants." (Alan M. Dershowitz, "The Best Defense," at xxi (1982))

Across the nation police officers have engaged in corruption and malfeasance in criminal cases across the country which have yielded wrongful convictions. It should come as no surprise that Michigan is no outlier to these abuses of power.

An abundance of research has proven that "[p]olice falsification, or 'testilying' is the most common form of police corruption." (Tracey Maclin, Professor of Law, Boston University, "Race and the Fourth Amendment," 51 Vand. L. Rev. 333, 380 (1998))

According to Laura Cohen, Clinical Professor of Law, Director of Criminal and Youth Justice Clinic, Rutgers School of Law-Newark, and author of "Freedom's Road: Youth, Parole, and the Promise of 

Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida," 35 Cardozo L. Rev. 1031, 1085 (2014):

"The causes of wrongful convictions are legion, including, among others, erroneous eyewitness identification, false confessions, failures of science, ineffective assistance of counsel, law enforcement and prosecutorial misconduct, overzealousness, and use of unreliable informants."

Shortly after the March 15, 1989 arrest of fifteen-year-old Efrén Paredes, Jr. thirty-one years ago, the narrative about the event quickly focused on an alleged statement attributed to Efrén which was manufactured by the arresting officer in the case, William Tucker of the Berrien County Sheriff's Department.

The prosecution used Tucker's statement to prejudice Efrén and never attempted to question its veracity when cross-examining him during trial. It was a strategic decision done to disallow Efrén the opportunity to offer to the jury his own version of events that actually transpired.

"Even amid a documented history of police corruption in the form of perjury -- lying in reports and lying on the witness stand -- prosecutors regularly ... file charges based on the unexamined word of the arresting officer." (Steven Zeidman, Professor, CUNY School of Law, "From Dropsy to Testilying: Prosecutorial Apathy, Ennui, or Complicity?," 16 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 423, 424 (2019))

Why Efrén's defense attorney failed to inquire about his arrest during his trial is anyone's guess. From the time of his arrest until his trial Efrén made clear to his attorney multiple times that he didn't make the statement attributed to him by Tucker after he learned about the statement he manufactured.

Between the time of his arrest and his original sentencing four months later media outlets that breathlessly reported about the crime Efrén was charged with never reached out to him for a response to the Tucker statement. They simply reported Tucker's false claims and recklessly disseminated them as facts.

For context it's important to begin this story by introducing another criminal attorney named Tat Parish whose name was frequently used during Efrén's trial by the prosecution. Parish was their family attorney who prepared Efrén's parents' wills and assisted them with any other legal matters that arose.

Parish and the family had been friends and next door neighbors for several years. Efrén and his two younger brothers were also friends with Parish's sons who were close in age to each other. The kids spent time in each other's yards and homes regularly.

Parish was a criminal defense attorney very familiar with the type of misconduct that some members of law enforcement engage in through his experience with them in courtrooms over the years. He not only protected members of the general public against false allegations in trials, he also defended police officers accused of crimes.

Over the years Parish had conversations with Efrén and his own children as they were growing up about their rights regarding police contact. He instructed them that if a member of law enforcement were to ever accuse them of any wrongdoing, they didn't commit they should inform the officer that he, Parish, was their attorney.

The kids were also counseled to not make statements to police outside the presence of an attorney. This was to avoid having the kids be coerced into making any false statements without a witness present that could be used against them later.

The afternoon of March 15, 1989 Efrén's mother received a phone call from an attorney in Parish's office named Philip Riley. Riley informed Efrén's mother that he had just spoken to another local attorney and learned that Efrén may be arrested that day in connection with the murder and robbery of a store manager that occurred a week earlier.

Riley asked Efrén's mother to pick him up from school and take him to their home so if he actually was arrested, they could be there to witness things as opposed to him being arrested at school. He also instructed Efrén's mother to convey to Efrén that if he is arrested to let them know Parish is his attorney and not to answer any questions from police outside of the presence of his attorney.

Shortly thereafter Efrén's mother called her husband at work, told him about the details of the phone call they received, and asked him to pick Efrén up from school, which he did. Upon Efrén getting into the car his father briefly told him about the phone call he received from his mother and told him they would get more details when they arrived home. (There were no cellphones when this occurred in 1989.)

When they arrived at their home, they were met by Efrén's mother, two brothers, and extended members of their family. Upon their arrival Efrén's mother offered more details from the phone call with Riley including the instruction for Efrén to tell police Parish is his attorney and not to answer any police questions outside the presence of his attorney.

A short time later, at approximately 4:57 pm, police cars surrounded their home. Detective Tucker entered the garage which was connected to the home and knocked on the door to the kitchen of the home. Upon entering the kitchen he told Efrén he was under arrest.

When Tucker handcuffed Efrén and read him his Miranda rights Efrén immediately informed him in the presence of his family that Tat Parish was his attorney just as he had been instructed to do. Tucker acknowledged this in the report he made regarding the arrest.

Tucker handcuffed Efrén and he was then escorted out to a police car parked in the driveway by Lincoln Township Police Department Chief Daniel Robinson. The car had officers seated in the front of the car and Efrén was placed in the backseat of the car. While seated in the car Efrén remained silent and didn't speak to anyone, nor did any officers claim that he did in any police reports.

A short time later Tucker returned to the squad car alone and ordered Efrén to exit the car and accompany him to an unmarked police car parked at the end of the driveway. Tucker placed Efrén in the front seat of the police car next to him rather than in the back seat, which is typical for people who have been charged with murder. No one else was in the car other than Tucker and Efrén.

Tucker then proceeded to drive Efrén to the Berrien County Jail. During the drive Tucker began telling Efrén that the other boys who had already been arrested in connection to the crime had "dumped" on him. Tucker told him the police had "the gun" from the murder and they (the police) knew he killed the victim whose death he was being charged with.

As Tucker continued rambling, became belligerent, and attempted to badger him Efrén remarked, "I told you Tat Parish is my attorney. I can't answer any questions until he's there." Tucker quickly became visibly angry at Efrén's unwillingness to talk and their exchange abruptly ended.

Upon arriving at the jail Tucker escorted Efrén into the building and took him to an interrogation room where two other officers were present. Once in the room one of the officers offered Efrén a Miranda card. He asked him to sign it and tell them about the crime he was arrested for.

Efrén had no clue what a Miranda card was at the time nor had he ever heard of one. He refused to sign the card and immediately informed the officer who offered it to him that Tat Parish was his attorney and he would be making no statement outside the presence of his attorney.

The officer grew angry with Efrén's unwillingness to cooperate and began yelling at him. He began threatening Efrén telling him if he didn't tell them what happened he was going to "get fucked" and "die in prison." Despite being terrified by what was occurring Efrén still refused to speak to the officers.

A short time later the officers received a phone call telling them Efrén's attorney was there to see Efrén. The officers placed Efrén in an elevator and took him to see the attorney. The attorney, Paul Jancha, informed Efrén that Tat Parish sent him to talk to him and let him know that Parish would be visiting him later that evening.

Parish wanted to remain present at Efrén's parents' home while a search warrant was being conducted at the home by several police officers. Jancha again reminded Efrén not to speak to anyone at the jail outside the presence of his attorney.

Later that afternoon Tucker fabricated a police report falsely claiming that during their drive alone in the car Efrén told him he was waiving his right to have an attorney present and stated, "Fuck you ... I'm only 15, and I ain't going to do no time. You can't prove nothing."

According to Efrén, "Tucker's statement is completely false. I never said anything even remotely close to that. I was in handcuffs and completely terrified kid at the time. I had respect for law enforcement and believed they were good people."

He added, "I didn't know anything about wrongful convictions or that officers will lie if they don't get their way. I had never been arrested before and the officer was sitting next to me carrying a loaded gun. There is no way I would have said anything like that to him."

Tucker appeared before Berrien County District Court Judge Daniel R. Deja less than a half-hour prior to Efrén's arrest. During a probable cause hearing lasting only a mere eleven minutes Tucker rushed to present information to the judge he obtained from an informant named Steve Miller in an effort to convince him to issue a warrant for Efrén's arrest.

Miller, a drug dealer at the time, was admittedly connected with the planning of the crime and never charged by the Berrien County Prosecutor. A decade later he was charged and convicted in an unrelated case in federal court for drug trafficking.

Because he was the person to obtain the warrant for Efrén's arrest Tucker felt pressured to justify his reasoning for doing so by trying to coerce an incriminating statement from Efrén. However, once Efrén stated he had an attorney and wouldn't answer questions regarding the case Tucker felt compelled to manufacture a statement for him.

Tucker refused to accept that he could have made a mistake. He also refused to allow himself to be embarrassed by a 15-year-old he couldn't coerce into speaking to him and provide him with any helpful information for the investigation. His confirmation bias prevented him from being able to gather evidence and view things objectively.

According to D. Kim Rossmo and Joycelyn M. Pollock authors of the academic journal article, "Confirmation Bias and Other Systemic Causes of Wrongful Convictions," 11 Ne. U. L. Rev. 790, 814 (2019):

"Confirmation bias is a type of selective thinking. Once a hypothesis has been formed, our inclination is to confirm rather than refute it. We tend to look for supporting information, interpret ambiguous information as consistent with our beliefs, and minimize any inconsistent evidence. Types of confirmation bias include: (1) the biased search for evidence; (2) the biased interpretation of information; and (3) a biased memory (selective recall)."

They add, "Unfortunately, there have been several cases where detectives refused to abandon the original suspect, justifying their intransigence through highly convoluted reasoning. Critical thinking requires effort, and an entrenched position, even an untenable one, can persist through psychological lethargy and organizational momentum."

Efrén exercising his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest was negatively colored when people -- including jurors at his trial -- heard that he immediately told police he had an attorney when he was arrested, and that he declined to speak to officers outside the presence of his attorney.

They had no idea that Efrén already knew he may be arrested before it actually occurred. They also didn't know he had previously received instructions from two different attorneys, including only minutes before his arrest, about what to do if he were to have any negative contact with police.

Because people were unaware of this, some negatively perceived Efrén's mention of already having an attorney as evidence that he had something to hide or that it implied some sort of guilt or wrongdoing.

Efrén simply followed the advice of counsel who sought to ensure he asserted his constitutional right to remain silent and not answer any police questions outside the presence of an attorney, to protect him from overzealous officers like Tucker trying to make a name for themselves.

Laurie L. Levenson, Professor of Law & William M. Rains Fellow, Loyola Law School, writes:

"[I]t is entirely understandable why an innocent person might assert his Miranda rights. After all, it should not be surprising that a person, who has just been told that he has the right not to answer questions, chooses not to answer questions. It is bizarre to think that anyone who believes he has been erroneously arrested should automatically disregard his rights and try to appeal to the people who just effected the arrest."

She adds, "While most defendants do waive their Miranda rights, a person who truly believes he has been improperly arrested for a serious crime might actually decide that he needs the assistance of counsel before interacting further with the police." (Laurie L. Levenson, "The Problem with Cynical Prosecutor's Syndrome," 20 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 335, 359 (2015))

Studies have also shown that guilty suspects may be more likely to waive Miranda rights "when they have strong world beliefs that cause them to comply with social standards." (Kyle C. Sherr & Andrew S. Franks, "The World is Not Fair: An Examination of Innocent and Guilty Suspects Waiver Decisions," 39 Law and Hum. Behav. 142, 148 (2015))

(To learn more about the case of Efrén Paredes, Jr. or how you can support his campaign for justice visit http://Bitly.com/FreeEfren and http://fb.com/Free.Efren.)

Mich. Supreme Court Makes Significant Ruling for Juvenile Lifers

by Necalli Ollin

"Government improprieties should not find an oasis within the court system." (Robert M. Bloom, "Judicial Integrity: A Call for Its Re-Emergence in the Adjudication of Criminal Cases," 84 J. Crim. l. & Criminology 462, 501 (1993)

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an important ruling January 17, 2020 in the case of People v. Tykeith Turner, 2020 Mich. LEXIS 99, which will impact dozens of prisoners previously sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) when they were juveniles ("juvenile lifers").

In 1995, Tykeith Turner, a 16-year-old from Detroit, was convicted of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM), and carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), for his role in a drive-by shooting that killed a man. He shot at another person and missed during the same incident, according to court records.

For the crimes Turner was originally sentenced to life in prison without parole for first-degree murder, life in prison with the possibility of parole for AWIM, and a term of two years' imprisonment for felony-firearm.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 465 (2012), "that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishments.'"

Four years later, in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Miller must be applied retroactively. (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 736 (2016)). Because Turner received a sentence of mandatory life without parole for his first-degree murder conviction, he was entitled to resentencing.

When returning to the trial court for resentencing in 2016 Turner requested to be sentenced for both the first-degree murder and the AWIM charges. He argued that his entire sentence was invalid since both his charges were part of a single event, and the U.S. Supreme Court had determined that the mandatory life-without-parole sentence was unconstitutional.

It also made no sense that Turner could be resentenced for the charge he originally received the most time for (first-degree murder) and receive a lesser sentence for that charge when resentenced than for the sentence he was serving for the lesser charge of AWIM.

The trial court noted that, although speculative, Turner's sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for AWIM could negate Miller and Montgomery because Turner could serve his full prison term for first-degree murder but be denied parole for AWIM.

Lastly, the trial court agreed that the sentences Turner received were invalid based on a misconception of the law, and went on to resentence Turner to 25 to 60 years' imprisonment for first-degree murder, and 20 to 27 years' imprisonment for AWIM.

The Wayne County Prosecutor subsequently appealed the trial court's new sentence for AWIM. In 2018 a three judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals heard the appeal and rendered a new judgment in the case.

Justices Peter D. O'Connell, Joel P. Hoekstra, and Kirsten Frank Kelly agreed with the prosecution and reversed the new 20-year sentence imposed on Turner by the trial court for AWIM. They also reinstated a life in prison with the possibility of parole sentence for the charge.

After a three year court battle, January 17, 2020 the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the 2018 judgment by the Court of Appeals stating in relevant part:

"A sentence is invalid if it is 'based upon ... a misconception of law ... .' People v. Miles, 454 Mich. 90, 96; 559 N.W.2d 299 (1997). In the Miller context, a concurrent sentence for a lesser offense is invalid if there is reason to believe that it was based on a legal misconception that the defendant was required to serve a mandatory sentence of life without parole on the greater offense."

The state's high court also remanded the Turner case back to the Wayne County Circuit Court to reinstate the December 21, 2016 judgment of sentence of 25 to 60 years' imprisonment for first-degree murder and 20 to 27 years' imprisonment for AWIM.

Among the Michigan juvenile lifers impacted by the new Michigan Supreme Court ruling who remain entangled in the lengthy resentencing process is Efrén Paredes, Jr. of Berrien County. The invalid sentence he received was even more egregious than one received by Turner.

Efrén was 15-years-old at the time of his arrest. He was convicted three months later and received two life in prison without parole sentences for the shooting death and robbery of a store manager. He also received a life in prison with the possibility of parole sentence for the charge of armed robbery. The sentencing guidelines for the robbery charge were three to eight years at the time.

Efrén's case is the subject of the 2019 documentary film installation titled "Half Truths and Full Lies" produced by award-winning filmmakers Tirtza Even, Meg McLagan, and multimedia producer Elyse Blennerhassett. His case was also featured in the 2015 documentary film "Natural Life" produced by Tirtza Even.

For over three decades Efrén has proclaimed his innocence. Four alibi witnesses have corroborated he was home with his family when the crime occurred. Witnesses have also come forward stating under oath that some of the prosecution's witnesses provided false statements to police and offered perjured testimony at his trial.

Despite the evidence exonerating Efrén that continues to mount in his case he must still go through the same process  to be resentenced as the other 366 Michigan juvenile lifers. Innocence is not an issue that courts generally consider during juvenile lifer resentencing hearings, though in a recent Wayne County case it did.

Efrén has accomplished numerous things during his incarceration. He helped create a charter school in the Los Angeles Unified School District; co-founded Presente.org, the largest online Latinx social justice organizing digital platform; and has worked tirelessly on issues such as prison reform and raising awareness about mass incarceration.

There are 200 remaining Michigan juvenile lifers awaiting their day in court aching for the opportunity to one day realize freedom again. Like Efrén, the vast majority of them are not "irreparably corrupt" or "incapable of change," and are deserving of term-of-year sentences -- not life in prison without the possibility of parole.

This is the standard for resentencing juvenile lifers plainly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark rulings dates back to 2012 when it counseled sentencing bodies against imposing the draconian sentence stating:

"Deciding that a juvenile offender forever will be a danger to society would require making a judgment that [he] is incorrigible -- but incorrigibility is inconsistent with youth and for the same reason, rehabilitation could not justify that sentence.

"Life without parole foreswears the rehabilitative ideal. It reflects an irrevocable judgment about [an offender's] value and place in society, at odds with a child's capacity for change." (Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2465 (2012))

Before abolishing mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders in 2012 the nation's high court made a ruling in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), mandating that non-incorrigible juvenile offenders should receive a meaningful opportunity for release.

In his peer-reviewed academic journal article titled, "A Meaningful Opportunity for Release: Graham and Miller Applied to De Facto Sentences of Life Without Parole for Juvenile Offenders," 60 B.C. L. Rev. E. Supp. 332, 348 (2019), Anton Tikhomirov writes:

"Graham's concern with the limitations of a life-without-parole sentence, combined with its focus on a defendant's ability to achieve self-fulfillment clearly demonstrates an intent that non-incorrigible juveniles have an opportunity to participate in society beyond living out the last few years of their lives following release."

He added, "To realize Graham's mandate of a 'meaningful opportunity for release,' one must be afforded 'hope' and a chance of 'fulfillment outside prison walls,' 'reconciliation with society,' and 'the opportunity to achieve maturity of judgment and self-recognition of human worth and potential." (Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 79 (2010))

Decision-makers are abusing their power and undermining U.S. Supreme Court rulings resulting in time-consuming and costly appeals at taxpayer expense. Their actions are steadily eroding public confidence and trust, and impugning the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The public cannot be expected to respect or adhere to institutions that are not impartial and lacking integrity. Instead, they will begin to reject them. In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis:

"For good or for ill, [the Government] teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." (Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (Brandeis, L., dissenting) (1928))

Over 100 juvenile lifers in Michigan have been resentenced and released in the past few years. Of that number not a single one has reoffended or returned to prison. They have been receiving average sentences of 29.5 years when being resentenced and many of them have spent decades behind bars.

Michigan has earned the dubious distinction of becoming the state with the highest number of juvenile lifers in the country. It has done so while twenty-eight states have abandoned the extreme death-by-incarceration sentence.

The number of states banning the sentence has quadrupled in the last five years. ("States That Ban Life Without Parole for Children," The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, available at https://fairsentencingofyouth.org/media-resources/states-that-ban-life/.)

It is long past time that juvenile lifers like Efrén and the other remaining 200 people languishing in Michigan prisons with unconstitutional sentences the past eight years receive their new sentences and we end this chapter of injustice.

(To learn more about the case of Efrén Paredes, Jr. people can visit http://Bitly.com/FreeEfren or http://fb.com/Free.Efren.)

Efrén Invites Prosecutor to Participate in Youth Deterrent Program

[The following is a proposal sent to Berrien County Prosecutor, Michael Sepic, from Efrén Paredes, Jr. in September 2019 inviting his office to participate in the creation of a youth deterrent program to help prevent and reduce youth violence in the county. To date Efrén has received no response to his proposal.]

RE: Youth Deterrent Program Proposal

Dear Mr. Sepic:

I am writing to invite your office to consider participating in the creation of a Youth Deterrent Program ("YDP") to assist at-risk youth in Berrien County.

Last month I moderated an event at the Lakeland Correctional Facility ("LCF") where we hosted DJ Hilson, Muskegon County Prosecutor and outgoing President of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM). It was a very positive event that was widely attended and well received by Mr. Hilson, prisoners, and facility staff who were present.

At the event I asked Mr. Hilson to consider partnering with us to create a YDP which could be helpful to at-risk youth in his county. He expressed that he really liked the idea and accepted the invitation. I am currently gathering background and supporting documentation about similar evidence-based programs in the state to share with him.

YDPs currently exist at three Michigan prisons. They consist of representatives from various prosecutors' offices, members of law enforcement, and/or social workers accompanying a small group of at-risk youth to engage in dialogue with prisoners. They convene for a couple hours each month in a prison visit room where the public visits prisoners when the space is available outside of regularly scheduled visiting hours.

During YDP dialogues prisoners encourage youth to remain in school and avoid a criminal lifestyle. They also share stories about their lives, the consequences of making poor choices, and the harsh experience of incarceration. Prisoners are carefully screened to participate in the YDP by prison administrators. Close supervision by the team of people who escort the youth to the prison is present at all times.

The curriculum for training participants of the program is based on the work of Dr. William Glasser, Jr. His widely recognized training program was developed over 50 years ago. The primary components of Dr. Glasser's training program that would be utilized in our YDP include Choice Theory and Reality Therapy which are available in the book, "Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom."

All prisoners involved in YDPs are unpaid volunteers who donate their time and service to be a part of the program because they choose to. The benefits they accrue from their participation is helping transform the lives of young people, making our communities safer, and giving back to society by helping repair the harm they caused.

Participating also helps prisoners become better returning citizens by developing a deeper sense of humanity and appreciation for the sanctity of life on their journey to redemption. It not only aids in the transformation of their own lives, it also helps them model that transformation for many at-risk youth who embrace the belief that they can't be what they can't see.

According to Bureau of Justice statistics, 95% of all prisoners return to the community one day. Cultivating a working relationship between your office and prisoners from the county can help build an important bridge that provides the community -- and your office -- with important assets and resources. They can also become invaluable entry points into areas of the county you otherwise wouldn't have when they are eventually released.

If the proposed version of a YDP isn't feasible other options you may wish to consider include arranging to have prisoners speak to at-risk youth in real-time via video teleconferencing, over the phone, or forming a group of prisoners to write them letters or messages. Combinations of these could also be helpful.

In 2015 I was selected as one of 20 prisoners to participate in the Michigan State University My Brother's Keeper Program taught by Dr. Austin Jackson. In the program we received training to mentor at-risk youth in Grades 6-8 in the Detroit Public Schools. We also developed a peer-to-peer mentoring program to help young prisoners already in the carceral system.

I co-created and facilitated a conflict resolution workshop in 2013 alongside a psychologist, three social workers from Mental Health Services, and a prison counselor as then-President of the National Lifers of America ("NLA"). The workshop was instrumental in reducing violence in the prison and helping transform the distorted thinking and dysfunctional behavior of hundreds of prisoner participants of all ages and races.

That same year I helped develop the curriculum for the "Peer Enrichment and Parole Readiness" workshop, along with the Director of American Friends Service Committee, Natalie Holbrook, and a group of 15 other prisoners. The workshop is now being taught at six different prisons across the state.

My experience growing up between the ages of 15 to 46 behind bars and interacting with thousands of prisoners of all ages, races, and classes; and the knowledge I have attained from decades of researching criminal thinking, trauma, violence, adolescent development, toxic masculinity, and cognitive behavioral therapy, will be helpful making the creation of a YDP a reality.

Also helpful will be the skills I have developed mentoring at-risk youth inside and outside of prison; completing numerous self-help and rehabilitative programs; and voluntarily participating in over 100 therapy sessions with licensed mental health professionals during the past nine years.

With the rising tide of gun violence around the country by the hands of troubled young men I believe it is imperative that we tirelessly work to combat the scourges of racism, misogyny, and toxic masculinity. We can ill-afford to wait for additional acts of senseless violence to ravage our communities using weapons of war before exploring sensible alternatives to help solve the problem.

Simply jailing offenders after they have committed crimes, coupled with ignoring their dignity and redemptive qualities, has proven a dismal failure to preventing criminality. It is a reactionary response after harm is inflicted on undeserving members of the community.

Preventing the infliction of harm to themselves and the community is more prosocial and sensible than trying to repair the wreckage of recklessness and destruction of its aftermath. Waiting for crime to happen before acting often proves too late.

If incarceration alone truly prevented crime we would have eradicated it long ago and be the safest country in the world. No nation in human history has imprisoned more of its citizens with the frequency and duration that we have. Though we are 5% of the world's total population we house nearly a staggering 25% of its incarcerated people.

A large number of troubled youth are impervious to guidance from counselors, members of law enforcement, and even their own parents. Many of them, however, will listen to incarcerated -- and formerly incarcerated men -- who share their lived experiences and have traveled through the same corridors of criminality.

Proactive evidence-based programs like YDPs are effective because youth are able to interact with prisoners who can share stories with them about the horrors of incarceration and the consequences of making poor choices. They can also offer them myriad reasons they should change the trajectory of their lives and open the door to transformation.

An abundance of research shows that intrinsic motivation is nearly always a more reliable driver and durable predictor of positive behavior than anything extrinsic. This is among one of the many reasons it is so important to reach and provide troubled youth with much needed identity, purpose, and direction before it's too late.

The vast majority of prisoners want to help heal their communities from the pain and devastation they once caused. This is evidenced by several formerly incarcerated friends of mine who were originally sentenced to life without parole who have subsequently been released and returned to their communities.

Today they are mentoring youth, gainfully employed, pursuing college degrees, feeding the homeless, and some are even working closely with law enforcement to help make their communities safer. These men are no longer the dangers to society they once posed as impetuous, reckless, risk-taking teenagers.

Each day they are proving that no one's life experiences can be reduced to a single story. Prisoners are no more defined by their greatest accomplishment than they are by their worst mistake. It is a culmination of their lived experiences that defines them. Not a snapshot in time.

Men like this can help you reach troubled youth and detour those headed in the wrong direction. They can also help them explore the possibility of new horizons through engagement and helping them develop critical thinking skills, impulse control, and the value of emotional intelligence and sound consequential thinking.

Formerly incarcerated citizens who have spent decades behind bars gain a deeper appreciation and respect for freedom and the sanctity of life. By carving out opportunities from hardships they learn, grow, and change during years of separation from society, and by engaging in deep introspection which helps transform them in profound ways. Rather than only learning to do less of the bad, they also learn to do more of the good.

According to Stacey Abrams, thought leader and author of "Lead from the Outside": "The best ideas and policies are typically collaborative and those that succeed are the product of a community." This wisdom can help rescue our troubled youth, heal our communities, and replace the specters of intolerance and wrath with compassion and second chances.

I am hopeful you will give thoughtful consideration to this proposal and/or share it with any agency in the county receptive to seeing it materialize. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. I am receptive to having a thoughtful dialogue with you. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,


Efrén Paredes, Jr.
#203116
Lakeland Correctional Facility
141 First Street
Coldwater, MI 49036

Efrén Completes "Education and Human Flourishing" Course

by Necalli Ollin

oday Efrén Paredes, Jr. completed the class "Education and Human Flourishing," taught at the Lakeland Correctional Facility (LCF) by Dale Brown, Western Michigan University, Lecturer in the Dept. of Philosophy; Research Assistant in the Dept. of Teaching, Learning, and Educational Studies; and Director of WMU Prison Education Outreach Program. Efrén was one of only 20 prisoners qualified to meet the strict criteria required by facility administrators to participate in the class.

According to Brown, "The focus of this course was shifting ideas about how human nature and diversity -- involving social categorization, stereotyping, and cultural bias -- play an important role in our understanding what kinds of flourishing, and education, are possible and desirable."

During the class students learned about moral virtues, moral vices, and strategies to bridge the gap between the people we are and the people we seek to become. The class also studied philosophy, systems of thinking, learned that appreciative engagement with merit or worth is what produces happiness in our lives, among other subjects.

As one solution to help repair the devastation caused by the school-to-prison pipeline, the course emphasized the value of creating a prison-to-college pipeline. Evidence-based research has proven higher learning significantly reduces recidivism by transforming lives and fostering a departure from antisocial beliefs and actions.

"Students enjoyed learning how to engage in metacognition (i.e., thinking about how they think and the ways of thinking that are most likely to facilitate learning) and exploring ways to enrich their lives so they can acquire the skills to become better versions of themselves," according to Efrén.

He added, "Our instructor did a great job of bringing the college classroom experience to the prison and inspiring students to utilize their potential to be successful and flourish in life. He encouraged students to be confident in themselves and keep stirring their curiosity and imagination as they excavate the world's repository of knowledge."

Efrén wrote his final paper for the class in response to the question, "Why has higher education in prison not received wider public support?" He plans to continue building upon his final paper and submitting it for publication in an academic journal. He wants to also make it available to the public across multiple platforms to be used as a tool to help change public perception about the issue.

Pres. of Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Mich. Visits Coldwater Prison

by Efrén Paredes, Jr.

Wednesday, August 7, 2019, prisoners at the Lakeland Correctional Facility hosted DJ Hilson, Muskegon County Prosecutor and President of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan. Hilson accepted the invitation to speak at the facility from prisoners interested in building bridges and beginning a dialogue between prosecutors and prisoners.

A large number of prisoners turned out to hear Hilson share his thoughts and answer a broad range of questions regarding important criminal justice issues. Some of the subjects discussed included the school to prison pipeline, sentencing reform, and rehabilitation. He also shared how his faith guides his daily life and his dedication to community engagement.

Hilson stated he was impressed with the atmosphere and view of the sprawling prison grounds which he absorbed as he ambulated from the Control Center to the building we convened in. Absent the fences draped in concertina wire that ring the prison, he could see a landscape more closely resembling a park or college campus than a compound caging human lives.

As he walked through the prison, Hilson observed dogs from the dog rescue program being walked around by their trainers, prisoners harvesting an array of vegetable gardens, and several beautifully manicured islands of vibrant flower beds. He also passed an assortment of bushes and trees, stone bird baths, and an outdoor fish pond -- home to dozens of colorful goldfish.

The landscaping is the product of former Wardens at the prison who sought to create a vision of humanity and foster a milieu of rehabilitation. It was created through decades of hard work by prisoners in the facility horticulture program and is maintained daily by prisoner groundskeepers.

At the event Hilson was introduced by a member of the Warden's Forum named Cedric Tooks. This writer moderated the dialogue. I received several questions from audience members and was tasked with presenting Hilson the ones that were appropriate, beneficial to the audience, and within the agreed upon terms in advance of the event (i.e., no questions or advice regarding personal cases).

Both prisoners and facility staff enjoyed the dialogue with Hilson and had a lot of positive takeaways. Even prisoners who were initially reluctant to attend the event because the speaker was a prosecutor expressed they were glad that they accepted the invitation to go.

According to one prisoner, "Going to the event wasn't what I thought it would be. I expected to hear a bunch of tough on crime rhetoric and about how horrible prisoners are. Instead, [Hilson] told us he views us [i.e., prisoners] as human beings capable of change even though we've made mistakes. That really stuck with me."

Several prisoners stated they respected Hilson's courage to speak inside a prison. Rather than attempt to ingratiate himself with prisoners, he expressed his genuine feelings and beliefs. He even began a couple statements with, "I know this isn't going to be popular," signaling he understood prisoners may not agree with his answer to a question.

Though there were some areas of disagreement during the hour-and-a-half long exchange of ideas, Hilson and audience members were able to agree on several issues. He also remarked that he would remain open-minded and receptive to sensible future policy reform ideas.

One idea Hilson and prisoners were able to agree on was collaborating to deter at-risk youth from entering the criminal justice system as one way for prisoners to help heal our communities and make them safer. Hilson accepted our invitation to work with event organizers to create a Youth Deterrent Program ("YDP") to help at-risk youth and prevent crime.

YDPs currently exist at three Michigan prisons. They consist of representatives from the prosecutor's office, law enforcement, social workers, and non-governmental organizations -- or combinations thereof -- accompanying a small group of at-risk youth to engage in dialogue with prisoners. They convene for a couple hours each month in a prison visit room where the public visits prisoners when the space is available outside of regularly scheduled visiting hours.

During YDP dialogues prisoners encourage youth to remain in school and avoid a criminal lifestyle. They also share stories about their lives and the harsh experience of incarceration. Prisoners are carefully screened to participate in the YDP by prison administrators. Close supervision by the team of people who escort the youth to the prison and prison custody staff also remain present at all times.

If this version of a YDP isn't feasible at LCF other options can include arranging to have prisoners speak to at-risk youth in various counties in real-time via video teleconferencing, over the phone, or forming a group of prisoners to write them letters or messages. Combinations of these could also be helpful.

At one point during my conversation with Hilson I conveyed to him that no prisoner's life experiences can be reduced to a single story. They are no more defined by their greatest accomplishment than they are by their worst mistake. It is a culmination of their life experiences that defines them. Not a snapshot in time.

I also expressed the importance of remembering that 95% of all prisoners return to their communities one day. They aren't banished to another planet after they leave the courtroom never to be seen again. Some people seem to embrace this false narrative, however, given the way prisoners are demonized and portrayed as menacing, irredeemable figures.

It is a reality that must be acknowledged by all stakeholders involved (e.g., judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, legislators, members of the community, etc.) and taken seriously, so wrath can be replaced with opportunity, and condemnation replaced with compassion.

If we don't strive to erase the stigmas metaphorically branded on returning citizens we run the chilling risk of transforming prisons into monster factories by objectifying prisoners. We also risk exponentially increasing the chances of these women/men recidivating and becoming deficits to society rather than assets by creating a dismal culture of failure.

According to Simon Sinek, author of the New York Times bestselling book, "Start With Why," "The more abstract people become, the more capable we are of doing them harm." This is one of the dangers of othering prisoners. Once we embark down that dark, narrow path it becomes easier to dehumanize them and engage in abhorrent behavior towards them.

Hilson acknowledged that prisoners who have served decades behind bars are not the same people they were at the time of their crimes. He also expressed his belief that there are things prosecutors can learn about the prison experience and prisoner's lives that can help better inform prosecutors how to tailor punishment for offenders.

The event was the first time Hilson participated in this type of dialogue inside a prison since he has been a prosecutor. He expressed his gratitude for being invited to participate and a willingness to return in the future to build on the successful dialogue that began that day.

It was a positive experience teeming with teachable moments for Hilson and his audience. A testament to the power of communication and keeping an open mind even in a place where people frequently find themselves at odds with one another as they struggle to cope with the daily horrors of incarceration.

The event also demonstrated that prosecutors and prisoners can occupy the same space at the same time and have a thoughtful conversation. Every point of contact doesn't have to be adversarial or in a courtroom.

When we can recognize the humanity in each other, regardless of our station in life, we can collaborate to usher in a new reality born of mutual respect and understanding. We also model the capacity of metanoia for future generations who aspire to stand on our shoulders as they explore ways to build a better future.

Hilson's visit was a step in the right direction to improve prosecutor and prisoner relations. Hopefully it was only the first chapter of working together to change the trajectory of troubled lives, help heal our communities, and explore ways to foster redemption and second chances.

(Efrén Paredes, Jr. is one of Michigan's 230+ remaining juvenile lifers awaiting resentencing. He is a blogger, change maker, and social justice activist whose case is the subject of the recent documentary film installation titled "Half Truths and Full Lies." You can learn more about Efrén or the film by visiting http://Facebook.com/Free.Efren)

Fed. Judge Makes Case to End Life Sentences for Juvenile Offenders

by Efrén Paredes, Jr.

http://fb.com/Free.Efren
July 19, 2019

A federal judge from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently ruled that prison sentences are unconstitutional if they are "the functional equivalent of life without parole" (LWOP), exceed a juvenile offender's lifespan, or do not give the offender a "meaningful opportunity for parole consideration."

The ruling was made by Judge Mark Goldsmith in the case Hill v. Whitmer, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115855 (decided 7/12/19), regarding prisoners who were sentenced to LWOP when they were juveniles ("juvenile lifers").

In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional and ordered the resentencing of all 2,500 prisoners across the nation affected by the ruling.

The Miller decision held that a LWOP sentence could now only be imposed on juveniles in cases where judges have an option to mete out a term-of-years sentence or a LWOP sentence. In other words, judges must have discretion to choose.

The court made it abundantly clear, however, that LWOP sentences could only be imposed in cases where the juvenile offender is "irreparably corrupt" and incapable of change. They also stated that the extreme sentence must become "rare and uncommon."

Contrary to popular belief, the high court did not ban LWOP sentences altogether for juvenile offenders. They only struck down LWOP sentences in cases where a mandatory sentence was the only sentence that could be imposed by a judge at the time.

In Michigan there were 373 prisoners who needed to be resentenced. Of that number, 235 prisoners -- sixty-three percent -- have yet to be resentenced and continue serving unconstitutional sentences.

The inordinate delay has been the result of prosecutors abusing their authority to arbitrarily file motions seeking LWOP sentences against hundreds of prisoners who do not meet the requirements outlined in the landmark Miller ruling. Their misconduct has resulted in the need for costly mitigation hearings and expert witnesses at taxpayer expense.

Judge Goldsmith's ruling strikes at the heart of Michigan's law regarding the sentencing of juvenile lifers to extreme sentences. If a prison sentence that exceeds a juvenile offender's lifespan is unconstitutional because it denies the offender meaningful parole consideration, obviously a LWOP sentence that will never provide them parole consideration does as well.

Lawmakers continue clinging to pernicious punishment for juvenile offenders so they can campaign as being "tough on crime" rather than "smart on crime." LWOP sentences for juveniles would have been abolished years ago as twenty-one other states have already done if not for legislators' reticence to do the right thing.

If lawmakers are unable to resolve this ongoing legal battle one sensible solution is for Attorney General Dana Nessel to withdraw the motions filed by prosecutors seeking LWOP sentences again for the remaining 235 juvenile lifer cases. This would avert further delays, allow judges to schedule sentencing hearings, and proceed as they normally do when performing other individualized sentencing hearings.

The impediment to moving forward would be removed and prosecutors could still argue for imposition of radically extreme sentences, if they elect to do so. Sentencing bodies are not marionettes to prosecutors, however. They are independent thinkers who can interpret the law and will side with the U.S. Supreme Court more often than they will with prosecutors in the vast majority of cases.

Another proposed solution is for Governor Whitmer to commute the sentences of the remaining juvenile lifers awaiting resentencing to 25- to 60-year sentences, and give jurisdiction to the Parole Board to begin reviewing the cases for parole consideration after the prisoners have served twenty-five years. After twenty-five years all juvenile lifers will have served well over half their entire lives behind bars.

By commuting their sentences the prisoners would all remain convicted and not be released until the Parole Board determines they no longer pose a danger to society. The prisoners would not automatically be released. The Parole Board would use its wealth of resources to make these determinations as they do for thousands of cases each year.

Release of prisoners would be contingent upon their rehabilitation and what they are doing with their time while incarcerated. Those who do not demonstrate growth and maturity could remain incarcerated up to 60 years depending on their behavior, if they live that long.

Of the nearly seventy prisoners who have been paroled none have recidivated and all have become productive members of society. Prisoners serving LWOP sentences who are released have a less than one percent chance of recidivating. This is the lowest recidivism risk of all offense categories.

Commuting the sentences would also save taxpayers millions of dollars that could be reinvested in schools and infrastructure projects rather than spent on avoidable mitigation hearings. Conservative estimates have the cost of 235 hearings being upwards of $10 million to pay for attorneys, qualified expert witnesses, and court hearings.

Political theater and gamesmanship are not the solutions to correct failed public policies that prizedeath-by-incarceration sentences over rehabilitation and redemption for juvenile offenders. Creating more injustice is not a solution to resolving injustice, it only compounds the problem. We need more solutions not more problems.

(Efrén Paredes, Jr. is one of Michigan's 235 juvenile lifers awaiting resentencing. He is a blogger, change maker, and social justice activist whose case is the subject of the recent documentary film "Half Truths and Full Lies." You can learn more about Efrén or the film by visiting http://Facebook.com/Free.Efren)

"Half Truths and Full Lies" Film About Efren Paredes, Jr. Coming to Lansing, MI

You are cordially invited to the reception for the film installation "Half Truths and Full Lies."

"Half Truths and Full Lies" is a multi-channel documentary film installation that depicts the case of Efren Paredes, Jr. who was arrested at age 15 and sentenced to life without parole in 1989 for a murder he asserts he did not commit. He has spent two-thirds of his entire life behind bars and will soon be 46-years-old.

The reception is Friday, March 15, 2019, from 5 - 8 p.m.

Location:
Casa de Rosado
204 W. Mt. Hope
Lansing, Michigan

Filmmaker Tirtza Even and members of Efren's family will be in attendance at the reception. Efren will also be calling in to the event from prison throughout the evening. He will be available to answer questions and participate in media interviews.

The reception is being held on the 30th anniversary of Efren's original arrest date. A selection of his essays, poetry; and an in-depth, revealing, exclusive new interview with him about his personal life and decades of experiences during his incarceration will also be available at the gallery. 

You are encouraged to use our Facebook event page to invite friends in your network to view the film installation, to share the event on your social media platforms, and ask others to do the same. The Facebook event page can be accessed at: www.bit.ly/HTFL315. You can visit the event page for any updates between now and the opening reception.
______________________________________________________________

"Half Truths and Full Lies" is a collaboration film project between nonfiction filmmakers Tirtza Even, Meg McLagan, and multimedia producer Elyse Blennerhassett.

The exhibit will be on display from March 15 - April 12, 2019. It is free and open to the public.

The film depicts, through documentation and reenactment, the case of Efren Paredes, Jr., a Latinx man from Michigan, who was arrested at age 15 and sentenced to life without parole for a homicide he asserts he did not commit.

The multi-channel installation takes on a Rashomon-like quality, as divergent accounts of the crime accrue, forming multiple portraits of Efren. These accounts reflect perspectives of a range of individuals, from a police detective detective to key witnesses from the tight-knit small town community who singled Efren out, as well as of those whose lives -- over the past 30 years -- were most affected by the teen's conviction: family members, teachers, and citizens who sat in judgment as jury members.

"Half Truths and Full Lies" tells a story about a story; one constructed by a group of teens who appear to have conspired to set up their peer, and whose narrative played on stereotypical assumptions about racial minorities. This account became the only one the public and the jury got to hear, and the one upon which the local police and prosecutor relied.

The installation, however, is also a story about a handful of alternative, untold stories, and at their center -- Efren's story of innocence. The project attempts to recuperate conflicting narrative possibilities, and to investigate the nature of truth-telling in both media and the law.

The goal of the film is to create a new form of storytelling that unfolds non-linear and in space: to surround the viewers with incompatible slivers of the narrative, and have them piece the story together themselves. Even when added up, however, the various angles of the story form a broken and inconsistent whole. The goal is to generate reasonable doubt about the narrative version used by the prosecutor, and to thus undermine its certainty.

Cinematography and editing assistance: Yoni Goldstein
Additional camera: Steve Maing and Gonzalo Escobar
Sound mixing: Julian Flavin

"The Meaning of Life: The Case for Abolishing Life Sentences."

by Efren Paredes, Jr.

A new book titled "The Meaning of Life: The Case for Abolishing Life Sentences" by Marc Mauer and Ashley Nellis was recently released. In the book the authors provide a litany of compelling reasons why the practice of sentencing prisoners to life in prison is misguided and inhumane.

Marc Mauer is the Executive Director of The Sentencing Project, a national organization based in Washington, DC, that promotes criminal justice reform. He is also the author of "Race to Incarcerate" and "Invisible Punishment." Ashley Nellis is a senior research analyst for The Sentencing Project who has written extensively on the prevalence of life sentences in the United States.

Mauer and Nellis argue that there is no practical or moral justification for a sentence longer than twenty years. Harsher sentences have been shown to have little effect on crime rates, and a broad body of research demonstrates that people "age out" of crime, meaning that lawmakers are wastefully spending significant resources to incarcerate individuals who pose little or no threat to public safety.

They cite the 2017 Model Penal Code of The American Law Institute, a well-regarded, nonpartisan body of legal scholars, which concluded that "terms for single offenses in excess of 20 years are rarely justified on proportionality grounds, and are too long to serve most utilitarian purposes." Its standards are in alignment with the American Bar Association which has called for the length of sentences to be "no longer than needed to serve the purposes for which it was imposed." 

According to Mauer and Nellis, "Lengthy prison terms lead to diminished returns for public safety and distort how criminal justice resources are allocated. ...They also deny the possibility of redemption and reconnection to the community for individuals who no longer resemble the much younger lawbreakers who committed a serious crime for which they are incarcerated."

The book features important profiles of redemption about the lives of people who endured years experiencing the horrors of languishing in prison, were eventually released, and went on to become contributing members of society. It is an important contrast to the steady stream of negative stories depicted in the media which attempt to paint all offenders with the broad brush of failure.

One of the men Mauer writes about in the book is Ahmad Rahman. Rahman was one of my first mentors I corresponded with in prison during and after his incarceration. After having his sentence commuted by the Governor and being released from prison he went on to earn his PhD in African-American and African Studies.

After earning his PhD Rahman later became a professor at the University of Toledo and University of Michigan-Dearborn, respectively. He would surprise me by occasionally mailing me copies of peer-reviewed journal articles and other educational materials to foster my education which he knew I enjoyed reading. Unfortunately, while reading Mauer's story about Rahman in the book, I learned that he died of a heart attack since we last corresponded.

Rahman's story is one among the many success stories of former prisoners who have returned to the community and did great work after serving decades of incarceration. Had he remained in prison for the remainder of his life the world would have been denied the benefit of receiving the gifts he had to offer.

Reviews of the book include:
I can think of no authors more qualified to weigh in on the complex impact of life sentences than Marc Mauer and Ashley Nellis. If ever there was a doubt that such sentences are deeply inhumane, one need only read their book. You will find yourself both horrified and deeply, irrevocably, moved." --Heather Ann Thompson, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning "Blood in the Water"

"Sure to have a profound impact on legislators and everyday citizens across America. The Sentencing Project started working on criminal justice reform long before it became fashionable. Combining impeccable research with smart policy recommendations, their work continues to set the gold standard." --James Foreman, Jr., author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning "Locking Up Our Own"

"A blistering indictment of America's practice of sentencing people to die in prison that dares readers to change the way we think about public safety, redemption, and justice. Essential reading for anyone committed to restoring legitimacy to our institutions." --Vanita Gupta president and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

I highly recommend that anyone interested in learning more about the policy of sentencing people to life in prison read this book. It is well-sourced and demonstrates why medieval failed practices of the past are incapable of solving the complex carceral problems of today.

(Efren Paredes, Jr. is a Michigan prisoner who has been incarcerated 30 years since age fifteen. He is the subject of the new documentary film titled "Half Truths and Full Lies," a social justice advocate, blogger, father, and husband.)