Appellate Court Directs Parole Board to Supply Wrongfully Withheld
Parole Documents to Brinks Robbery Participant Judith Clark
November 27, 2018 (New York) – International law firm Proskauer announced today that the
New York Appellate Division, First Department, today ordered the New York State Parole Board
to produce wrongfully withheld documents to parole applicant Judith Clark, one of the
participants in the 1981 Brinks’ robbery which resulted in the deaths of two police officers and a
Brinks guard. The Court further ordered the Parole Board’s Appeals Unit to hold a new
administrative appeal hearing after the documents had been produced.
In April, State Supreme Court Justice John Kelley overruled the Parole Board denial of parole
and its Appeals Unit that had affirmed that decision. He ordered the Parole Board to hold a new
hearing for Ms. Clark because it had wrongfully denied her access to key documents, failed to
adequately explain the reasons behind its April 2017 parole denial, based its decision on
impermissible factors, and failed to take other required factors into account. On the Parole
Board’s appeal of that order the Board admitted it improperly withheld documents from Ms.
Clark, but argued that its failure to do so was harmless error. The Appellate Division disagreed
and ordered that the documents be produced to Ms. Clark. However, rather than deciding the
merits of the appeal, as Ms. Clark had urged, the Appellate Division annulled the Appeals Unit’s
affirmance of the parole denial and ordered the Appeals Unit, following the production of the
documents to Ms. Clark, to reconsider its affirmance of the Parole Board’s initial parole denial.
Ms. Clark’s attorneys, Michael Cardozo of Proskauer, and Professor Steven Zeidman of CUNY
Law School, issued a statement saying: “While we are pleased the Appellate Division
recognized that the Parole Board acted wrongfully in withholding documents from Ms. Clark to
which she was clearly entitled, and that such action interfered with her ability to exercise her
rights to a fair and just parole process, we are disappointed that the Appellate Division did not
reach the merits of the case and affirm the ruling that the Parole Board had improperly denied
parole. As a result, the decision injures Ms. Clark’s right to have a new, prompt, and fair parole
hearing. However, we hope that when it reviews the entire record, including the documents that
the Appellate Division found had been wrongfully withheld, the Parole Board’s Appeals Unit will
recognize that Ms. Clark should be granted a new parole hearing that complies with the law.”
In addition to the new hearing before the Appeals Unit, and notwithstanding the Court’s
decision, Ms. Clark is entitled under the law to a new parole hearing in April 2019.
Ms. Clark has been in prison for more than 37 years and is the second-longest serving woman
in a New York prison. Many of the other participants in the crime, including several who were
more directly involved with the murders, have previously been released. In 2016, Governor
Cuomo granted Ms. Clark clemency after personally interviewing her, noting her “exceptional
strides in self-development.” Governor Cuomo’s clemency grant made Ms. Clark immediately
eligible for parole.
In April 2017, the Parole Board ruled, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that Ms. Clark was
completely rehabilitated, posed no threat to society, and whose parole application was
supported by hundreds of people she has known and worked with, that parole should be denied
because of the “seriousness of the crime” and “public opposition” to her release. That decision
was later affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Unit of the Parole Board. In setting aside that
decision the Supreme Court ruled, in a decision the Appellate Court declined to review on the

 merits, that the Parole Board acted improperly by taking a “backward-looking approach” to
parole, and failing to explain “why the numerous letters of support from those who personally
know Ms. Clark are outweighed by the opposition letters submitted by the community.”
Proskauer has a long history of public service and a distinctive pro bono program that enables
its lawyers to make a broad impact through a variety of projects. The Firm’s extensive pro bono
docket ranges from high-impact litigation and complex transactions for nonprofit organizations to
matters for low-income individuals seeking equal access to justice.
Additional information about the Proskauer Firm can be found at www.proskauer.com.
***
Contact:
Jennifer Talbott
Proskauer
Media Relations Manager
jtalbott@proskauer.com
212.969.5128

2