March 30, 1995
English Lecturer Virginia Elliott said she would have testified at Jason "Quddus" Archie's parole revocation hearing last week if authorities had notified her.
She said they didn't, and said the University Police Department's statement at the hearing that she was a "fearful witness" is not true.
According to Liz Tanaka, media coordinator for the Board of Prison Terms, UPD Detective Ron Lam told the deputy counselor presiding over last Thursday's hearing that Elliott was a fearful witness and was therefore excused from appearing at the hearing.
"That didn't come from me," Elliott said. "I am not a fearful witness."
Elliott said she had not been asked to attend the hearing and has had no contact with the UPD or any other police or corrections agency since the original incident which led to Archie's arrest.
The UPD declined to comment on the Archie case.
Archie, 26, an Associated Students legislator and black studies major, was arrested on a parole violation Feb. 21, five days after a verbal confrontation with Elliott during an English class.
Elliott said that during the investigation that followed her request for advice on how to handle Archie, "nobody ever discussed the possibility of a parole hearing with me, and I never expressed any fears."
The fact that Elliott did not appear may have had an effect on the hearing's outcome, according to Arnold Erickson, a staff attorney with the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit organization located just outside the walls of San Quentin that works on behalf of the imprisoned.
Erickson said it is unusual that an officer would say in a parole revocation hearing that a witness was fearful without first confirming it with the witness.
But added, "In a hearing of this sort, when only the police are present, without (legal) representation for the defendant, it's very possible for all sorts of unfortunate things to happen."
According to the Board of Prison Terms a subpoena to appear at Archie's hearing was mailed to Elliott's "address of record" on March 14, but Elliott said she never received it.
"Not in person, not in the mail, not ever," she said.
The Golden Gater was unable to confirm that the "address of record" used by the Board matched Elliott's present address, and the Board said it is too time consuming to follow up on the subpoenas they issue.
Elliott said if she had been subpoenaed she would have appeared at the hearing.
She said she received a phone call a few days before the hearing from a woman who said she was Archie's girlfriend.
"She asked if I knew about the hearing -- I told her 'no,'" Elliott said.
When the woman asked if she was planning to attend, Elliott said she told her no, that no one had contacted her concerning the hearing.
"I was out of the loop. If I had been in the loop, I would have gone," she said.
Erickson said Archie may have a basis for an appeal if he was denied a favorable witness or the opportunity to question a witness.
Elliott said if she had been present, she would have stood behind the original informational statement she wrote but would not have been an antagonistic witness.
"I would have said that as an educator I would hope that he would come back to school and continue his education," Elliott said.
Erickson added that it can take a couple of months before an administrative (internal) appeal hearing is scheduled, and 90 days to a year to file a petition for an appeal in the courts.
Regional Parole Director Ron Chun down played the effect Lam's statement could have made on the deputy counselor's sentencing in this case. The deputy counselor determines just cause and length of prison terms in parole revocation hearings, Chun said.
He said if Elliott had come in and stated directly to the counselor that she was afraid of Archie, that could have been a factor in the lengthening of the term. But Chun said Lam's statement that Elliott was fearful and therefore excused from attending the hearing would not have been as strong.
"Parole boards have gotten tougher and tougher," Chun added. "They're going with the will of the people."
He said the average length of sentences in revocation hearings has gone up from six months a few years ago to about nine months today.
"It's a reflection of what's happening in the community," said Chun, referring to California's current emphasis on crime prevention.
Tharon Weighill, a representative on the Student Senate Governing Board, empathizes with the concerns of the community, he said.
"I can understand the sentiment and the mood of the state, if a parolee had truly violated parole," said Weighill. "Most of us believe (Archie) did not."
Weighill, who said Archie has authorized him to speak on his behalf, said, "I'm questioning their (UPD's) motives."
"There must be some kind of motivating factor for the continued manipulation of information to the powers-that-be to continue to keep him incarcerated," he said.
Weighill suggested that an attempt to cover up mistakes made by the UPD earlier in the investigation may have prompted "Lam to go into the hearing and boldly lie -- thinking he can cover his ass.
"They are acting ignorantly, they are acting unjustifiably, they are acting fearfully and they are acting desperately," Weighill concluded.