Below, you will find excerpts from the official press release followed by the salient portions of Judge Brady’s ruling.

“Angola 3” Member to Be Released On Bail After 37 Years

Conviction Overturned, Judge Rules Albert Woodfox Must be Free During Appeals or Re-trial

Lawyers: Ruling Brings Hope for Remaining Prisoner, Also Spent 36 Years in Solitary for Guard’s Murder

Albert Woodfox, who has spent 37 years in prison at Angola Penitentiary, must be released on bail, according to a ruling issued today by United States District Judge James Brady. On September 25th, Judge Brady overturned Woodfox’s conviction for the 1972 murder of prison guard Brent Miller. Though the State has announced its intention to appeal that decision, until such an appeal is successful, according to today’s ruling, there is no conviction on which to hold Woodfox.

Herman Wallace, who was also convicted in the murder, remains in prison at Angola. He has an appeal pending with the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which is similar in content to Woodfox’s successful appeal. The two men were wrongly convicted based largely on the testimony of a fellow prisoner, Hezekiah Brown, a serial rapist who was promised and received a pardon in exchange for his testimony against them. Brown was the sole professed eyewitness to the murder, and none of the physical evidence put Herman or Albert at the crime scene.

Woodfox’s legal team is now working with the court to reach an agreement on a suitable release location and plan for Woodfox; once they agree to a plan, Woodfox will be able to leave Angola. The lawyers anticipate the process to take several more days.

Woodfox and Wallace were each held in solitary confinement from the time of the murder until last March, after a federal court concluded that their suit alleging that such confinement for three decades constitutes cruel and unusual punishment could go forward. A third man, Robert King Wilkerson, was held in solitary at Angola at the same time for a different crime; he was released in 2001 after showing that he had been wrongfully convicted. The three are known as the “Angola 3.” All black men, they had been organizing nonviolently for an end to gang-enforced sex slavery and for better conditions inside the prison. Angola at the time was known as the “bloodiest prison in the US.”

“This is a major victory in a case where justice is long overdue. Albert went into Angola in his twenties, and he’s walking out in his 60s. There is no conviction against him now, and the state should not take another day of his life,” said Chris Aberle, Woodfox’s lawyer.

“In 37 years, Albert never gave up hope that someday he would walk out the gates of Angola. We continue to hope that Herman will join him soon. Neither of these men should have spent a day in Angola for this crime,” said Nick Trenticosta, also a lawyer in the case.

The case has attracted attention on the state and national level. Last spring, US House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) visited the men, along with Louisiana House Judiciary Committee Chair Cedric Richmond (D-101). Richmond has announced his intention to hold hearings on the case, and Conyers continues to monitor developments.

The state had sought a stay of Judge Brady’s ruling ordering a new trial until the appeal process plays out. Judge Brady granted that request. The State must now either win its appeals, or will need to either release or retry Woodfox within 120 days of the end of its appeals.

Judge Brady held an initial bail hearing on October 14th; he postponed issuing a decision at that time to allow for additional depositions to be taken from Angola Warden Burl Cain and from a doctor who had examined Woodfox and his medical records. The State has now conducted both of those depositions.

Excerpts from Judge Brady’s ruling

Judicial rulings always begin with a brief recounting of the significant facts.  In the case of Albert Woodfox, it takes several pages to reconstruct the legal history of the case.  The sheer complexity of the legal process can be daunting to readers and reporters alike, but the facts Judge Brady reconstructs here demonstrate how long and painful the legal fight has been.  After experiencing reversal after reversal, it takes courage and unfathomable patience to keep fighting.  But Albert Woodfox and his supporters have never abandoned hope.  The legal history of this case appears in straight prose at the beginning of Judge Brady’s ruling, but I have broken it down to make it easier to read and to demonstrate, by numbering each discrete step in the process, just how convoluted the legal fight has been.

If you’re in a hurry, just skip the history and get to the good stuff.

1. In 1972, Mr. Woodfox, now a 61-year-old man, began serving a 50 year sentence in the Louisiana State Penitentiary for armed robbery.

2. One year into his sentence, he was charged by grand jury indictment of second degree murder of prison guard, Brent Miller.

3. He was found guilty of Miller‟s murder in 1973. He appealed his sentence, and the Louisiana Supreme Court eventually affirmed his conviction.

4. In 1992, Mr. Woodfox‟s conviction was overturned on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel by a federal court and in March 1993, the State reindicted him for first degree murder.

5. That charge was subsequently amended by the State to second degree murder.

6. He was retried for second degree murder in 1998 and again found guilty.

7. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction.

8. On June 15, 2001, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Mr. Woodfox‟s writ application.

9. On November 13, 2001, the United States Supreme Court denied Mr. Woodfox’s petition for certiorari.

10. Mr. Woodfox filed an application for post conviction relief with the 21st Judicial District Court on October 30, 2002.

11. That court denied relief and Mr. Woodfox applied for a writ to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted on May 16, 2003.

12. The appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court and on October 24, 2004, the trial court again denied Mr. Woodfox‟s post conviction relief application. 13. Mr. Woodfox again applied for a writ. The First Circuit denied the writ on August 8, 2005 and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied review on September 29, 2006.

14. Mr. Woodfox filed his habeas corpus petition in 2006, challenging his 1998 conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, state suppression of exculpatory evidence, and racial discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreman.

15. This Court approved the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Christine Noland and on September 25, 2008 granted Woodfox’s writ of habeas corpus.

16. This Court ordered the State to either retry Mr. Woodfox in 120 days or dismiss the charges.

17. The State has moved to stay the execution of the September 2008 judgment so that Respondent, Warden Burl Cain, may perfect his appeal to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.

18. Defendant Woodfox has filed a motion for release pending the State‟s appeal of this Court’s judgment granting the writ of habeas corpus and the State has filed an opposition.

19. A hearing was held on October 14, 2008 and the Court left the matter open to allow the parties to take the depositions of Warden Burl Cain and Dr. Brie Williams. Both the State and Mr. Woodfox have submitted supplemental memoranda regarding these recent depositions.

The state’s primary argument against granting bail to Mr. Woodfox was that he was an unrepentant and unrehabilitated thug.  In prison, the state argued, Woodfox had to be segregated from other prisoners; returned to the streets, he would run riot.  Judge Brady reproduces some of the statements made in defense of this position.

Warden Cain also stated that his opinion of Mr. Woodfox is “what I believe as a professional in corrections” and that even assuming Woodfox did not commit the murder of Brent Miller:

I would still keep him in CCR. I still know he has a propensity for violence. I still know that he is still trying to practice Black Pantherism, and I still would not want him walking around my prison because he would organize the young new inmates. I would have me all kinds of problems, more than I could stand, and I would have the blacks chasing after them. I would have chaos and conflict, and I believe that. He has to stay in a cell while he’s at Angola.

Warden Cain has also stated that, “I wouldn’t release him to the general population to live among the rest of us at all, because he is not a rehabilitated prisoner. He will be a predator when the opportunity comes his way and when he feels the need to be that, to indulge himself in his own wishes and desires. That’s what he does. He is not rehabilitated.”

Judge Brady was not impressed with these arguments.

Mr. Woodfox also asserts that Warden Cain’s opinion regarding his potential release may have more to do with his association with the Black Panthers than with his conduct while imprisoned and that Mr. Woodfox’s continued imprisonment “on the basis of his perceived political beliefs would be flatly unconstitutional.”

Warden Cain states that Mr. Woodfox needs to be in a cell while he is in Angola prison.  He does not offer any evidence that Mr. Woodfox would be violent outside a prison setting. Further, the Warden has testified earlier that Mr. Woodfox is an exemplary prisoner.

Contra state arguments, Judge Brady is not persuaded that Albert Woodfox poses a risk to the public.  The judge is clearly offended by the state’s crude attempts to undermine Mr. Woodfox’s prospects by talking trash to residents of the Slidell, La. neighborhood where Woodfox originally intended to reside if bail was granted.  A strong argument could be made that the state’s prosecution of the Angol 3 was retaliation for their work as political organizers.

The Court specifically finds as facts that Mr. Woodfox today is not the Mr. Woodfox of 1973. Today he is a frail, sickly, middle aged man who has had an exemplary conduct record for over the last twenty years. At the hearing before this Court on October 14, 2008, testimony was adduced that if released Mr. Woodfox would live with his niece and her family in a gated subdivision in Slidell, Louisiana. Mr. Woodfox has withdrawn that request because of fear of harm to his niece and her family by members of her subdivision and that other ramifications could be suffered by his niece and her family. This change was brought about by counsel representing the State of Louisiana contacting the subdivision home owners association and providing them with information regarding Mr. Woodfox. The Court is not totally privy to what information was given to the association but from the documents filed it is apparent that the association was not told Mr. Woodfox is frail, sickly, and has had a clean conduct record for more than twenty years. Mr. Woodfox will have to find another place to live prior to his release. The Court will condition Mr. Woodfox’s release pending appeal and/or his retrial on his obtaining a residence and living conditions acceptable to this Court. Therefore, this Court GRANTS Mr. Woodfox’s motion for release pending the State’s appeal (doc. 53).

In his supplemental memorandum regarding the depositions of Warden Burl Cain and Dr. Brie Williams, Mr. Woodfox asserts that “he does not oppose a stay of judgment if, and only if, this Court grants the Petitioner‟s release motion.”43 Therefore, this Court GRANTS the State‟s motion to stay our judgment requiring a new trial within 120-days (doc. 54). Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on November 25, 2008.

JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA