The court imposes a life sentence with the possibility of parole. Incarceration begins immediately; release is not possible in the foreseeable future, and the eligibility clock starts based on statutory minimums.
Extended period of imprisonment in the correctional system. This phase involves classification, housing, mandatory and voluntary programming (e.g., education, vocational training, substance abuse treatment, anger management, victim awareness), and building a positive institutional record through behavior and participation. Institutional conduct and rehabilitation efforts directly influence future parole prospects.
Accumulation of supportive documentation, including program completion certificates, support letters, release plans (housing, employment, community ties), and demonstration of insight, remorse, and risk reduction. In many systems, this includes pre-hearing consultations or file reviews to prepare the case file for board consideration.
The parole board convenes to review the entire case. Factors include offense details, institutional record, assessments, victim input, release plan viability, and overall suitability for supervised release. The individual may present evidence and testimony. Decision: grant (leading to parole supervision) or deny (with a future review date set, often years later). Release is discretionary and earned through sustained progress.
No, we don’t have a physical store location at the moment. We accept only orders through our online shop and we’re shipping all orders with the Swiss Post Service. Please visit our shipping section for more details.
From time to time you will find us at design fairs and popup markets in Switzerland. Subscribe to our newsletter and you’ll receive the latest news.
The state pays a flat rate of around $945 per case in California. Quality varies — it's truly the luck of the draw on which attorney gets assigned.
Check this document out. It's implemented.
Costs vary significantly by county and complexity. Hourly rates range from roughly $100–$400/hr for parole work, and full representation can run $5,000–$20,000+ depending on the case.
Possible, but not recommended by anyone familiar with the process. Don't let some TV show or movie give you false hope. You would be gambling at this point.
Free, but requires significant research and coordination. The problem with DIY is the same problem as bad breath — you can't smell your own. Your blindspots are invisible to you by definition, and the board will find every single one.
This is common inside. I've seen it firsthand — inmate-led groups helping others set up their packets, payment in commissary or jars of coffee. It exists, it can help, and it can also get you a packet built by someone who doesn't know what they don't know. Be careful.
Every single time an inmate had a private attorney who promised parole board packet preparation, it was just a generic packet the inmate had to fill out themselves. It always felt like the lawyer made this part an afterthought. But it makes sense — unless you're paying a lawyer their hourly rate, they are NOT going to do that packet for you the way you expect. You still have to do it.
I have lifer friends still inside, and I'm actively helping them prepare right now. I know exactly what they're facing. My job is to take the tools and resources available out here — the ones they can't access in there — and put them to work for them.
No psych report, no hearing. The board will not move forward without it. This is not optional in any state.
Assigned to you, not chosen by you. They work for the state. Keep that in mind when you read their conclusions.
Usually arranged through your attorney. Costs money. Can provide a counter-narrative if the state eval works against you.
Hired directly by the inmate or family. Gives you the most control over the evaluation process. Worth the investment if your state score is a problem.
The crime report is accurate. The victim testimony is accurate. The sentence was appropriate. There is no version of this where you were wrongfully convicted or partially responsible. You are fully responsible. The board has a full file that says so.
The question is not whether you did it. The question is: do you understand what it actually cost — not what it cost you, but what it cost the people who didn't choose to be in that situation?
Full ownership is not a strategy. It is a precondition. You either arrive at it or you don't. But if you sit before that panel performing ownership without actually having it, two experienced evaluators are going to see straight through it. The real question isn't "how do I explain what I did." It's "do I actually get it — and can I prove that through consistent documented behavior over years?"
The board doesn't retry cases. They are not there to decide whether the jury got it right. They are there to determine whether you are safe to release. The problem is: if you maintain your innocence, you cannot demonstrate insight into the commitment offense — which is one of the board's primary evaluation criteria.
This is not unfair. It is a structural reality. And it is the cruelest part of the process for people who genuinely did not do what they were convicted of.
There is no clean answer here. But there is a documented path that acknowledges the verdict, demonstrates character development in spite of it, and does not hinge the hearing outcome on relitigating the conviction. The board has to believe you are safe. That is separate from whether they believe you are guilty.
This is not a disqualifier by itself. But it is weight you are carrying into the room that other people aren't. Every disciplinary write-up, every validated gang association, every in-prison incident goes into the file. The board reads the file before you open your mouth.
The question they are asking is: how long ago was it, what does your behavior since then actually show, and is the change documented or just claimed?
Recency matters. Consistency matters more. A man who was a problem for 15 years and clean for 5 is in a different position than a man who was clean for 20 years and caught something last year. You cannot change the record. You can only build on top of it.. long enough and consistently enough that the board has something real to look at.
They put it in the transcript. It is now in your file. Every future panel will read it. This is not a soft criticism. A previous panel calling you a liar is active weight against you and there is no talking your way out of it. You can only document your way out of it.
The only response to being called a liar by the board is years of behavior that makes the label look wrong in hindsight.
This is not a rehab situation. It is not something a new attorney can argue around. You have to earn the benefit of the doubt back one consistently documented action at a time and then show up to the next hearing with enough of a paper trail that the previous panel's characterization looks like the outlier, not the baseline.
Every denial has a reason. It's in the transcript. Most men don't read it the way they need to. They hear "denied" and they start strategizing for the next hearing based on what they think the board wants to hear.. instead of actually addressing what the board documented they saw.
A second or third denial is not bad luck. It is a diagnostic. It is telling you exactly what has not changed.
The men who eventually go home after multiple denials are not the ones who found a better attorney or a better approach for the hearing room. They are the ones who went back to their cell, read what the board actually said, and then spent the next 3–7 years doing the work the last panel said wasn't there. That's it. That's the entire playbook.
You didn't pick a victim. You picked an opponent. There's a difference and it matters to you, to your family, and to anyone who knows what actually happened that night. It does not matter to the probation report. It does not matter to the panel.
The board's job is not to establish who was more at fault. Their job is to determine whether you are safe. Mutual combat is not a mitigating factor in that evaluation.. it is a data point about your capacity for lethal violence under stress.
The men who navigate this successfully are not the ones who spend the hearing explaining the fight. They are the ones who spend the hearing demonstrating that the person capable of that outcome no longer exists.. and have years of documented behavior to prove it. Context is for the record. Character is for the hearing.