Arnold King Commutation Petition Hearing 7/28/2004

1

WALSH: – members of the Advisory Board of Pardons. To my immediate right is Mrs. Kochin.

KOCHIN: Afternoon.

WALSH: To her right is Mrs. Hooley. And to her right is Mr. Merrigan. And to my immediate left is

Mrs. McDonagh. And to the far end of the table is Mr. Dewey.

DEWEY: Afternoon

WALSH: And I understand that this is a large room. We’ll take a moment, if people in the public want to

move their chairs closer perhaps, if we can move them closer so that you’ll have an opportunity to better

hear. It’s very bad acoustics in this room, so we’ll take a moment. (audience reorganizes) OK. In case

the member of the public didn’t have an opportunity, let me reintroduce the members of the Advisory

Board of Pardons. Mr. Merrigan is to the far end of the table, followed by Mrs. Hooley. To her left is

Mrs. Kochin. My name is Miss Walsh. Mrs. McDonagh, and Mr. Dewey at the far end of the table.

Absent from today’s hearing is Mrs. Dottridge, who unfortunately – her husband is in the intensive care

unit at the hospital at this time and is unable to attend today’s hearing. However, Mrs. Dottridge will

have an opportunity, as she has been on the Board in hearings in the past, will have an opportunity to

review this entire record including the audio or videotape portion of this hearing, and will deliberate with

the Board and will render a recommendation to the Governor as well. If we could take a moment, and

counsel, if you could identify yourselves for the record, we’ll begin the hearing with that.

BURNHAM: My name is Attorney Margaret Burnham. B-U-R-N-H-A-M.

BERKIN: Edward Berkin, B-E-R-K-I-N.

SOFFIYAH ELIJAH: J. Soffiyah Elijah. Soffiyah is S-O-F-F-I-Y-A-H. Good afternoon.

WALSH: Good afternoon. Let me explain to Mr. King and to the attorneys and the members of the

public the process by which this hearing will be conducted. Different from the role of the Parole Board in

making discretionary release, the role of the Advisory Board of Pardons and Commutations is to make a

recommendation to the Governor as to the propriety of granting a commutation in this case. The Board

has had an opportunity to review on paper and make it a preliminary decision to grant this public hearing

to listen to the petitioner, the public, and his attorneys. And the Board will have an opportunity, also, to

ask any particular questions that they feel are relevant to their decision whether to recommend favorable

or unfavorable consideration to the Governor.

As far as the process itself, it’s a three-prong process beginning with the Advisory Board of Pardons

making a recommendation to the Governor. The Governor then will determine whether he shall act

favorably or unfavorably toward Mr. King’s petition. And if he decides to act favorably upon the petition,

2

it requires the advice and consent of counsel – of the Governor’s Counsel. So it’s a three-pronged process.

The Board, in different light, is guided by a few different processes. There’s statutory law governing the

hearing itself. There’s CMRs in the Code of Massachusetts Regulation governing the process as well as

the recently published Governor Romney’s guidelines in commutations and pardons. Again, the purpose

of this hearing is for the Advisory Board of Pardons to make an initial recommendation to the Governor

as to whether the extraordinary remedy of commutation should be exercised in this particular instance.

So as far as the hearing is concerned, we’ll give you, Mr. King, and your attorneys an opportunity for an

opening statement. Then it’ll be followed by individual Board members having an opportunity to

question you, whether it’s about the crime itself, your strides in rehabilitation, your plans if you were

fortunate to receive a positive consideration by the Governor – in essence, anything that each individual

Board members feels is important to their recommendation to His Excellency. After that time, we will

open the hearing up to public testimony.

It’s been noted before that each – the victims and the support have an opportunity – opposition and

support – to provide the Board with testimony as to their opinion whether Mr. King should be released

and his sentence be commuted. And given some reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, we have

indicated that the Board will take public testimony for 45 minutes for each those in support and those in

opposition. So however which way that you Mr. King, and your attorneys, have devised for the oral

presentation by your support witnesses, we do have that timeframe in mind. The same opportunity will be

given to any opposition, if they are here to testify. And certainly that doesn’t prohibit anyone as noted

and already been received to provide any written testimony to the Board for its consideration.

So with that in mind, I’m going to ask you, Mr. King, to stand so I may administer an oath, and any

member of the public who is here to give testimony to stand so that I may administer an oath. And if you

could raise your right hand. Attorney Berkin, you can sit down, that’s OK.

BERKIN: I’m going to make some statements that are in the form of a witness testimony, as well.

WALSH: OK, thank you. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you give to the Advisory Board

of Pardons will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

WITNESSES: Yes. I do.

WALSH: Please be seated. Just as a housekeeping matter, the Board will try to keep its voice up since

the crowd is large and the room is not conducive to really good sound. Those microphones don’t do a

very good job when amplifying your voice. They do record. But so – given the size and the structure of

this room, if you could speak up as much as you can so that each Board member can hear what you have

3

to say and that the public will have an opportunity to fully participate in this hearing, it would be helpful.

So with that being said, are there any procedural matters that need to be addressed before the substance of

this hearing begins?

BURNHAM: I think we’re prepared to begin, thank you very much, Chairman Walsh.

WALSH: OK. Now would be your opportunity for an opening statement.

KING: Thank you. To the Chair and to each member, I thank you very much for allowing me another

opportunity to appear in front of this honorable Advisory Board. In October of 1971, I shot and killed

Mr. John Labanara on Newbury Street in the Back Bay of Boston. John Labanara was 26-years old and

was celebrating with friends due to his recent successful completion of the Massachusetts Bar

Examination. Mr. John Labanara had a bright and promising future as an attorney. Mr. John Labanara

was young, intelligent, and popular. He was an athlete, a son, a brother, a family man, and so much more.

He had big dreams and the skills to achieve major accomplishments and performances.

I was a kid, an 18-year old drug addict alcoholic holding a gun and shattered those dreams, turned life

into death, and traumatized Mr. Labanara’s friends and his family and his community in October, 1971. I

was a teenage killer who, in an unprovoked fatal attack, pointed the gun at Mr. Labanara, and shot him in

the head.

I will always regret my behavior and my actions on Newbury Street which claimed the life of an innocent

man. I speak now to state the obvious. This should not have happened. I should not have been using

drugs and alcohol. I should not have taken the gun and pointed it at John Labanara. I should not have

pulled the trigger. I should not have left him to die in the car. There was no excuse for my behavior then,

and there’s no excuse now. I should not have murdered Mr. John Labanara, and I am the sole reason he is

not here today with his family, his friends, and his community. I am truly sorry for the pain and suffering

caused by my action on that

evening.

I have grown up in prison, living each day with the hopes of changing negative behavior patterns. And I

have done so. But as much as I would like to, I am unable to reverse those seconds, and I must continue

to make amends when possible for the life I ended, the life of John Labanara, by bringing peace where

there is discord, love where there is hate, and resolution where there is conflict. In making this statement,

it is not my intentions to cause any discomfort to anyone hearing these words. I speak today to bring

about some healing and comfort, if possible. And I hope this hearing will accomplish that, as well.

Thank you.

4

WALSH: Thank you. Do any of the attorneys have anything to add in lieu of an opening statement?

BURNHAM: I would like to make an opening statement. Chairman Walsh and members of the Advisory

Board of Pardons, first I thank you for the opportunity to address you on the commutation petition of

Arnold King, and I thank you for granting Mr. King’s request for this hearing. With me here as co-

counsel and here to assist you in your deliberations are Eddie Berkin, who has long been Mr. King’s

attorney, and Soffiyah Elijah, who is a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School.

As you can see, there are many people here who hope to address you on this petition. My purpose is to try

to highlight for you some of the issues and the facts that bear on them and that may be central to your

judgement on the petition. I would like to review briefly the procedural background of the petition, and

then I would like to address the merits of Mr. King’s request.

Arnold King is 52-years old. He was sentenced to life without parole for the first-degree murder of John

Labanara in June of 1972. The effective date of the sentence is January 7th of 1972. The murder was

committed on October 21st of 1971. On that date, Arnold King was 18-years old. As of today Mr. King

has been incarcerated on the murder and related charges for 32½ years.

The laws of the Commonwealth make clear that individuals who have been convicted of murder in the

highest degree are not eligible for release on parole. But our Constitution and our laws also establish that

in the proper case such sentences should be commuted. In providing for clemency our laws underscore

the balance that we strike between severe punishment for the worst crimes and mercy. Clemency speaks

to our common belief in the infinite potential for human growth, and in redemption. It speaks to the

pivotal role that the executive branch has in ensuring justice. Indeed, a penal system that lacked

clemency would be alien to the fundamental principles of justice on which our country was founded. And

similarly, if clemency is granted so infrequently as to be de facto obsolete, although available de jure,

such a practice would defeat the central tenet of our system, which is that justice should be tempered by

mercy.

Finally, clemency is not intended to be another assessment of the crime, or just another assessment of the

crime, but it proceeds from a fundamentally different perspective. Clemency looks to the humanity of the

offender and the process of rehabilitation in which he has engaged. At the center of the request for

clemency, of the inquiry about clemency, is the role of forgiveness in our system.

The Executive Clemency Guidelines of Governor Romney, to which the Chairman referred, among the

standards for eligibility for commutation provide as follows: the petitioner must show that he has made

exceptional strides in self-development and self-improvement and would be a law-abiding citizen. For

you the Board, I humbly suggest that the question is whether Arnold King meets this test for the grant of

5

mercy, and I further suggest humbly that, manifestly, he does. He is an exceptionally deserving candidate

for commutation. He is a rare human being, rare on the count of the extraordinary changes that he has

made in his own life, and rare because of the enormous gift and wisdom and the message of peace that he

has shared with thousands of vulnerable souls, young and old, whose lives he has transformed.

You have before you the record of Arnold King’s applications for commutation and relief, and I don’t

want to rehearse those details. Suffice it here to say that this is Mr. King’s fifth request for commutation

and his third appearance before the Board on this matter. The Board heard his application in 1992 for the

first time, and the second hearing took place in April of 2002. And that hearing resulted in a split 3-3

decision. There were four reasons given in their decision by the members of the Board who opposed

commutation. First, they were concerned about the nature of the crime. Secondly, they observed that Mr.

King had not been, in their view, forthright about the crime. Thirdly, they noted Mr. King’s disciplinary

history. And fourthly, they noted that there was opposition from the District Attorney and from the

Labanara family.

Mr. King presents you, today, with a record that is far stronger than it was in 2002. He has addressed,

and I believe he has done so effectively, directly, and forthrightly, the concerns of Board members over

which he has some control. I’d like to spend a few minutes acquainting you with his achievements

which, for any mortal, would be unusual, and for a man behind bars is really quite amazing.

Mr. King came to the Massachusetts prison system as a man without scruples or morals or direction or

prospects. He was devoted only to himself and motivated only to get high. He was a potent danger to

himself and to anyone whose misfortune it was to cross his path. He was illiterate and ignorant of the

world and of his place in it. Few people can transport themselves from the bowels of the known world

where the young Arnie King was then into the highest ranks of world citizenship, which is where he is

today. Arnie was able to travel on that arduous path because of his unusual, innate gifts – an enormous

intellect, a keen understanding of human nature, and a generous spirit. And also because he learned, in

the joint, to harness and to hone his talent and to share it.

Constructing this new human being did not come painlessly or quickly. Rather, it took time – indeed,

decades. I suggest that Arnie King epitomizes the highest form of citizenship, and of course this week we

are particularly attentive to the qualities that define the engaged citizen, qualities to which we all aspire

and hope to foster in the generation that will follow us.

The one who would earn the accolade “engaged citizen” is a learned man. The citizen teaches, studies,

mentors, and leads. He builds community and he nurtures family. He both abides by the law and

challenges wrongdoing, official and otherwise. He is an advocate for a better world. Arnold King holds a

6

place of honor among world citizens for all of these reasons, and you will hear from those who have

taught him, those who have learned from him, and members of the community and family whom he has

sustained.

Arnold King was a high-school dropout when he entered prison, and he has now earned from Boston

University a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree. He’s continued his formal studies at the University

of Massachusetts and is headed a Ph.D. and would by now have achieved that academic goal if he had

had the opportunity as an inmate. However, he has exhausted the opportunities for formal education that

are available to Massachusetts prisoners. Arnie King’s teachers have attested to his strengths as a student,

to his curiosity, his critical mind, his eagerness to meet challenges and challenging material.

Professor Reebee Garofalo of the University of Massachusetts in Boston calls him “a model student.”

Professor Dante Germanotta, now deceased, of Prairie College, began teaching Arnie in 1988 and recalls

that he eagerly and frequently participated in class discussions, and he lauds his academic achievements.

Both of these teachers developed strong professional relationships with Arnie outside of the classroom,

they thought so much of him. Professor Germanotta engaged Arnie as the administrator of a program that

brought college students into Norfolk and later in Bay State. These men have been supporters of Arnie

for decades, and they, among many other teachers, will tell you of his strength of character, dependability,

and his intellectual seriousness.

Having benefited from his exposure to education, Mr. King swiftly became as strong a teacher as he had

been a student. His teachers are his peers, prisoners and adults on the outside who seek guidance on the

challenges of daily life, and importantly youth, vulnerable to the same personal devastation to which he,

as a young man, succumbed. Mr. King has organized, administered and directed scores of programs at

Bay State designed to enhance the well-being and educational attainment of prisoners and of other

attendees. Arnold King, world citizen, has enriched our dialogue about crime, violence, and prisons with

his writings, which are always informed and persuasive. With Janet Jones, who is here, he co-authored

the article “Violence and the Offender: Interrupting the Cycle of Violence.” And you have, in the binder

that we provided, this one, at tab five, a recent editorial that Mr. King authored in his capacity of founder

of the group, Through Barbed Wire. The piece addresses the urgent need of treatment programs within

our prisons. As an administrator of prison programs, Arnold King’s reputation is, I daresay, unmatched.

And you have as well in your binder, letters from people who know Arnie only in that capacity. They, as

organizers of these programs, and Arnie as the prison liaison to them. Percissa Myron – Priscilla Myron

(sp?), excuse me, of the UMass Medical Center, who worked with Arnie as a peer educator in an HIV

AIDS program since 1998 in the prison, writes of Mr. King’s dependability, of his solid knowledge base,

and of his excellent teaching skills. Similarly, Reverend Joyce Penfield (sp?) has written of Mr. King’s

7

participation in the advanced Houses of Healing biweekly workshops. Reverend Penfield describes Arnie

as always the steady – and I’m quoting from her letter, “always the steadiest voice of reason, focus, and

peace in the group.” Justin Freed, a volunteer at Bay State for six years, has described Arnie as a humble

man and a natural leader. Tom Furlough, who is an outside sponsor of Alcoholics Anonymous at Bay

State, wrote to report that Arnie King has attended every weekly AA session in the seven years that Mr.

Furlough has been outside sponsor of that program. And he praises Arnie for his, I quote, “insight and

thoughtfulness in difficult AA discussions.”

Arnold King is perhaps best known for his ability to reach young people with his story of the desolation

and destruction of his own youth and of the journey – his journey towards atonement. He has not buried

his past, nor run away from the murder he committed, but rather, as evidenced by his work with youth, he

carries in every conscious moment the deep shame and remorse for the promising life of the young John

Labanara that he extinguished.

You will hear from the directors and participants in the prison empowerment program at Dorchester’s

City School, and from participant’s in Prison Voices. You have a letter from Glenn Koocher, the

Executive Director of the Mass Association of School Committees, who has described Mr. King as a

credible and powerful example for youth. And you have the testimony of Hassan Smith, a correctional

officer at South Bay Suffolk County House of Corrections, who met Mr. King in 1988 when Mr. Smith

was a juvenile delinquent. And Mr. Smith talks about the profound effect that Mr. King had on him and

credits him with helping him to take the step away from violence and anger and to become the productive

citizen that Hassan Smith is today.

What is most remarkable about the reputation Mr. King has earned is that it stretches over at least two

decades. He has not faltered in his commitment to the programs that he has adopted, but rather he has

been a steady and persistent presence as a mentor, teacher, administrator, and participant, week in and

week out for many, many years. Just to give you some sense of the breadth and sincerity of his

commitment, I’d like to share with you the programs that he’s involved with as we sit here today. He is

the president of the program Growing Together, and you have the certificates that he received as a

participant in that program. He coordinates the AA program and the 12-step program. He is a

coordinator of the health awareness program, which trains peer educators in matters of HIV AIDS and

other diseases in English and in Spanish. And Prison Voices, he is the co-founder and coordinator of that

group. He is the facilitator of the Fellowship Program, an outside/inside group which brings people from

the outside to meet with prisoners and to discuss social issues once a week. He organizes a poetry reading

at Bay State four times a year. And he organizes the computer lab which meets four afternoons a week at

the prison. One might ask, when Arnie King sleeps.

8

As I indicated, one of the concerns of the three Board members who opposed the petition in 2002 was that

Mr. King had accumulated disciplinary infractions quite far into his incarceration. The record before you,

and I’m referring to page 11 of the opinion of the Advisory Board in 2002, reflects four or five

disciplinary reports a year, with fewer in some years, from the date of Mr. King’s initial incarceration in

1972 until about 1981, when the reports begin to taper off. It appears that there were no disciplinary

reports for an eight-year period from 1989 through 1997. And then one in 1997, three in 1998, two in

1999, one in 2000, and two in February of 2001. He received his last report on February 7th of 2001. Now,

based on this record, the opposing members of the Board wrote in their opinion, the Advisory Board

conducts hearings for inmates on parole eligibility. A common trend is that inmates often face a difficult

initial period which then subsides. It is not uncommon for inmates to appear before the Parole Board with

very few disciplinary infractions, and some with none at all, particularly within the last few years of their

hearing.

This is my last point, the disciplinary record, and I thank you for your patience. I want to offer three

points about Mr. King’s record. First, he is in precisely the position of those parole applicants to whom

the Board referred, which is to say that he has had a clean disciplinary record for over three years, his last

report having been received in February of 2001. Secondly, I call the Board’s attention to the letter that

his attorney, Eddie Berkin, wrote to the Board, which is dated June 25th of 2002, and is also in your

materials, which addresses the underlying facts of the violations from 1997 through 2001.

My third and final point is the larger one here. I suggest that taken in its totality, Mr. King’s overall

prison record incontestably supports the conclusion that he will fully comply with any constraints on his

freedom that may be imposed as a condition thereto. The record establishes that from 1985 to 1987,

Arnold King was granted 31 furloughs. Those were periods of 24 hours, 48 hours, outside the walls. He

successfully completed – outside of the walls, and I should say under a short leash and tight constraints.

He successfully completed every furlough he ever had, and he used those times in the community to

nurture a family. His stepdaughter is here as are three of his brothers, and of course, his sister, Marva

King, from whom you will hear. He also carried on his work during his furloughs with schools and

community groups outside prison. Also, Mr. King was hired on jobs outside the prison, and he went to

work furloughs every day for a considerable period of time, never once violating the strict institutional

rules that govern those programs.

These experiences, combined with the fact that there has been no disciplinary infraction in three years

should lay to rest any concerns about Mr. King’s motivation and capacity to comply with any rules that

would be imposed upon him were he to be granted a commutation.

In closing, I thank you for the care that I know that you will bring to bear on this matter. Mr. King has

9

hundreds of supporters, many of whom are ready to, anxious to, indeed vying with one another to employ

him, to house him, and to help him attain his educational goals. He is widely loved because in becoming

the man he is today, he represents the best in all of us. All of the witnesses you will hear will strike that

chord, and I commend their words to you. Representative Demakis who could not be here, but whose

videotaped statement you will hear, summed it up extremely well. He will tell you that Arnie King is a

rare man, his case is a rare case, and his petition a rare opportunity to breathe life into the law’s promise

of mercy. That is, I hope, what each of you will conclude as well. Thank you very much.

WALSH: Thank you. Attorney Burnham, and Berkin, and Elijah, in part, I’m going to begin the

questioning of Mr. King. And I failed to mention a few other housekeeping matters. One is that if at any

time that you require assistance of counsel, feel free, and if you need to take a break to provide some sort

of counseling to your client, just let the Board know and we’ll take adequate breaks. If there’s a question

that you don’t understand, by either myself or any of the other Board members, feel free to ask for

clarification. And to the extent possible, since this hearing is about your extraordinary strides in

rehabilitation, your attorneys are here to assist you, Mr. King, but I think the preference would be for as

much of a dialogue between you and the members of the Board to occur. It would be most helpful for our

determinations and our recommendations to the Governor.

And finally, just to put clearly on the record, I just want to indicate to any members of the public that are

here and to my fellow Board members, as well, that although I don’t have the date for certain, a few

months ago I did have the opportunity to meet with members of your legal team as well as some of your

support members. And the purpose of that meeting was simply to discuss the procedural aspects of

commutation guideline, and there was no substantive conversation about your particular strengths,

weaknesses, or anything of that nature, but it’s important to note those things in the record.

Mr. King, I’m going to begin the questions. And due, in large part, to the fact that not only have you had

several public hearings in which many of these issues have been fully vetted, but you’ve had the

extraordinary good fortune of having some excellent attorneys prepare documents and really hone in on

the issues that are important to the Advisory Board of Pardons in making the recommendation, my

questions are very few. This is, in my view, more of an opportunity for a public hearing to air out any

issues that the public wants to bring to our attention and any questions that the Board has, either after that

public portion or through the materials presented, both by you and certainly by the victims and any other

opposition by the District Attorney’s office.

Since I also had the position as a Board member back in 2002, my questions are going to be focusing on

what has changed since 2002. Whether Board members were here for your last hearing or not, they also

had the opportunity to review all the written documents as well as the videotaped portions of the hearings

10

from years past and can take that into consideration when they deliberate and come up with a

recommendation.

But as you know, what’s changed, from my point of view Mr. King, is a few things. First of all, there are

a few new Board members on the Board from your last hearing. At the least hearing, there were six

members. This year, there are seven. And three of the Board members who were here in 2002 are also

here in 2004, and there are four different members that will deliberate and render a recommendation to

the Governor. That’s changed, as well as the Governor has issued, in 2003, Executive Clemency

Guidelines, that give the Advisory Board of Pardons a little bit more guidance and direction as to what

Governor Romney is looking for as far as qualities and for successful commutation petitions. And finally

– and the third part is that whatever has changed from your least hearing in 2002 to present, I’d like you

to give us an update.

So why don’t we concentrate for a few moments on some of the questions that I have, and they relate

specifically to Governor Romney’s Executive Clemency Guidelines that were issued in April of 2003.

Not much different than what has traditionally been known in the form of executive clemency. It’s a rare

and extraordinary circumstance. And in the commutation guidelines, it discusses certain issues and

different factors that should be considered. I just want to make sure maybe you, Mr. King, or your

attorneys can answer this – that there are several categories under commutations which the Governor will

consider. And of course, it indicates that a commutation of sentence reduces a period of incarceration. It

does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It

has no effect upon the underlying conviction. It does not necessarily reflect on the fairness of the

sentence originally imposed. Because commutation relief is an extraordinary remedy that will rarely be

granted, the petitioner bears the responsibility of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence. And

there are a few categories. I just want to make sure from you, Mr. King, and from your legal team, that

the category of relief and the reason for this petition is based on Paragraph B, Section 1, Subsection A,

that Mr. King has made exceptional strides in self-development and self-improvement and would be a law

abiding citizen. Am I correct in that assumption?

KING: Yes.

WALSH: OK. And secondly, I just want to go down through the category, and it’s with more ease – in

Category 2 it says the Governor will rarely, if ever, grant commutation relief where, A, there is an

administrative or judicial remedy available. Is there an administrative or judicial remedy available for Mr.

King?

BERKIN: No.

11

WALSH: Is there any revise and revoke or any possibility of any legal opportunities within the trial court

system?

BERKIN: Those have been exhausted.

WALSH: Thank you. Mr. King, are you pursuing any post-conviction relief in either state or federal

court?

KING: No.

WALSH: Are you engaged in any civil litigation related to your criminal conviction against the

Commonwealth or one of its agencies, subdivisions, councils, or Board?

KING: No.

WALSH: Certainly, number D does not apply. Or E. F is that the petitioner has not yet progressed from a

24-hour maximum security confinement status. The level of security that you’re at now, Mr. King, is

what?

KING: Level four.

WALSH: And how would you characterize the hours – it’s categorized as a 24-hour maximum security.

KING: No. It’s not – Bay State is not a 24-hour maximum security.

WALSH: It’s a 24-hour level four –

KING: Right.

WALSH: – which is a medium security. OK. When it comes to letter G, it says the petitioner does not

accept responsibility for his crime, and I’d like to spend a few moments on that. Certainly the Board

members’ recommendations, unlike the parole decision, which is completely discretionary, invested

within the members of the Parole Board, the Advisory Board of Pardons is required to follow the

Governor’s guidelines. And one of the guidelines that the Governor indicates that he would weigh

importantly is whether there is an acceptance of responsibility. And the footnote appears to somewhat

address some of the issues raised in your past hearings which was – it says, in general the commutation

cases, the correctness of the underlying conviction is assumed, and the question of guilt or innocence is

not an issue. However, if a petitioner refuses to accept guilt, minimizes culpability, or raises a claim of

innocence or miscarriage of justice, the Advisory Board should give weight to this fact, and important to

note, as part of its recommendation to deny relief. So are there any categories that – of acceptance of

guilt, minimizing culpability, raising a claim of innocence or miscarriage of justice that you feel is

important to raise to the Board today?

12

KING: There’s no doubt that I accept responsibility. I accept guilt because I am guilty. And in terms of

minimizing culpability, I think in the past my statements have been less than full. And, you know, it’s

grown. I’ve had to do some thorough research in talking with people who are concerned about me and in

groups in trying to do a more thorough inventory and come to grips with being responsible for killing a

man. It wasn’t easy, and it was difficult to a large degree, but I’ve been able to do that. And so today I

hope you’ll be able to hear that and feel that as well. In terms of raising the claim of innocence, I’ve

never, nor do I want to raise the claim today. A miscarriage of justice – that’s not relevant at this point in

this hearing. So I think that those areas, accepting guilt, culpability, and the issue of innocence and

miscarriage of justice certainly does not apply here.

WALSH: OK. And I’m going to briefly focus, just for a few moments, again, having the ability to have

been on the Board before and also to be able to refresh my memory with the documents that have been

prepared in this particular petition on your exceptional strides in self-development and self-improvement,

and the fact that if we recommended this extraordinary relief that you’d be a law abiding citizen. And

although your attorneys have done, as I said, an excellent job in outlining who Arnold King was before

and who he is now, I’d like for you to take a few moments, if you would, Mr. King, to explain to myself

and to my colleagues, why do you think that your strides are exceptional, and specifically, what areas of

self-improvement and self-development do you think that you have accomplished?

In other words, in the Department of Corrections, there’s a number of individuals serving first-degree

murder convictions without any hope of ever being released out into the community, so they certainly

have no hope of being released on parole. And because of that, and because of that lack of hope,

oftentimes first-degree murderers don’t develop and they don’t improve. In fact, they go the opposite

way because there’s nothing to really work for, to strive for, and to achieve. And so we’re well aware of

your extraordinary public support in the community, acceptance, and the belief that people have in you,

but I guess I’d like to hear from your point of view, why do you think the room is full of people that feel

so strongly about Arnold King?

KING: I think – I think I was able to grow up in an environment where I had to mature, I had to learn,

sometimes the hard way, what was right and what was wrong. And I was able to do that with the support

of family and friends. I say family because without my family supporting me, without them coming to

visit me, without them keeping strong connections with me, primarily my mother and my sisters and my

brothers, I don’t know what would have happened to me. They encouraged me because they believed that

I was a better person than the one who was responsible for killing John Labanara. I began to believe that.

And I began to work on trying to demonstrate that, not only to myself but to people who was around me,

primarily my family and my friends, and my peers.

13

I was able to establish friendships with people who were involved with programs. I was able to establish

a friendship with a young lady who I met through my friend and attorney, Ed Berkin. And I made

changes because I didn’t want to be the person I was. I didn’t want to be that person. I didn’t want – I

didn’t want to be the person who didn’t care about human beings. I didn’t want to be that person who

took advantage of situations and people. I wanted to be an example of what a good person could be, a

good man, in spite of the fact that I was in prison and may not ever be released.

And so my journey was one that took me places that isolated me to some degree because of what was

going on in Walpole, what was going on in North Fork, I had to learn how to not be a part of a lot of

negativity. It meant me going to school as opposed to hanging out in the cellblocks or in the gym with

other people. It meant for me to go to meetings and go to programs where I could do something positive.

And it meant for me to really go inside and discover who I was and to bring out some of the good

qualities that I know, now, I possess. But without the support of some of the people you see in this room

and others who are not here, without that support I may still may be in Walpole or Shirley Max because

that’s where some of the guys are who was in Walpole at that time with me.

WALSH: Transformation, Mr. King, is often a process. I mean, I don’t think there’s a person in this

room who hasn’t tried to better themselves in some way, shape, or form. And it’s difficult to work on

your own faults and issues. But when you were incarcerated for this murder and first-degree murder

that’s a heinous act that was committed by you, other people didn’t give up on you, and it appears that –

your attorney pointed out in the beginning that your institutional behavior, at least for a good portion of

your early time of incarceration, indicated a person that had given up on himself. Maybe that giving up on

yourself happened a long time before you entered the doors of Walpole, I would imagine.

KING: Yes.

WALSH: What is that you – so in face of incarceration – it’s not to make it look like that your not human

and that you have risen to the level of imperfection – or perfection, excuse me, it’s just that to go back to

the issue of trying to transform oneself in the face of incarceration with no parole eligibility. Could you

talk a little bit about that? And could you also talk about what do you think that the qualities that other

people saw in you, even though you weren’t exhibiting them. I mean, your attorney described you as a

person with no morals, no scruples, no direction, and no prospect. A danger to himself and to others.

Illiterate, motivated by drugs and by an attempt to getting high. So while you were displaying all of these

negative characteristics, people saw something else in you, Mr. King, that gave you hope. What do you

think some of those things were that they saw, and how did you change yourself in face of being

incarcerated at our state’s prison?

14

KING: You know, when I was a teenager, I acted a certain way at home under the supervision of my

parents, and I acted a certain way when I was out in the neighborhood. So there was two sides to me.

You know, I could do things away from home that I couldn’t do at the house. And I understood that, to

some degree. So there was a good and there was a bad. I did good things and I did bad things.

Growing up in prison, some people saw bad things early in my incarceration, and other people were able

to see some good things because I was doing good things as well. So there was a mixture. And it took a

minute for me to really grasp that I could do good things and I appreciated good things, because in an

environment like that, there wasn’t that many good things going on. So I learned that some of the good

things that I liked doing, for example, was working with older prisoners who had difficulty understanding

writings. Could not read, could not write. And I had little skills, but I had enough to be able to help them

write a letter, read a letter when they got one, teach them some arithmetic. That made me feel good

because now I’m trying to service – provide a service to people who were in need of a service. And at the

same time I was building ties to other people, and they were positive ties. They weren’t the gambling, the

drinking, the drugging that were negative.

Growing up I learned how to communicate. I didn’t know how to communicate when I was a teenager in

society. My message was more reactionary. Action. Doing things. I didn’t have the verbal skills, I

didn’t have the ability to communicate, particularly about my feelings, how I was feeling. Because of

groups, because of other examples that I was able to meet in prison, I was taught these skills by other

peers as well as by professionals who would come in, volunteers who would come in and work with me.

They took time out, the volunteers as well as other peers, and they helped me.

Now what did they see in me? They saw potential. They saw a guy who was struggling – a young guy

who was struggling who had some goodness in him but needed help, needed support, and there was that

potential. And I was – I feel blessed that because of that early intervention during the ’70s that people

were able to really turn my life around. I use the example of the Adult Basic Education Program. I was

hired as an assistant teacher in 1974 to teach. I just had a GED and a couple of college courses under my

belt, but I could help older guys learn how to read and write. My goal at that time was to continue to teach

them, but I had to learn more. So that motivated me to go to school. Now, if it wasn’t for having that

opportunity in the Adult Basic Education Program, I might not have to pursued the associate’s degree, the

bachelor’s degree, the master’s degree, and post-graduate courses. I might not have pursued that. So that

kind of gave me some incentive.

The same with the counseling group, the drug counseling group. I needed help, but I couldn’t ask for it.

People told me when I was a kid, I needed help. I wasn’t hearing it. In Walpole I had an opportunity to

go to groups. I would attend. And gradually – not immediately, but gradually I was able to catch on.

15

And I was able to not only deal with my drug problem and alcohol problem in Walpole and in other

prisons, but I was able to start thinking about what brought me to prison. Because it wasn’t just the drugs

and alcohol that brought me to prison. It was the stinkin’ thinkin’. Trying to get over, cutting corners.

That’s what I had to address so that my attitude began to change. And it has changed. And because of

that, I’m taught that because people were there for me then, it’s incumbent upon me to be there for

someone today.

WALSH: Just a last question before my fellow Board members have an opportunity to have a dialogue

with you, Mr. King, is that the clemency guidelines indicate –

END OF SIDE

WALSH: – but maybe don’t have the good fortune of having the family and community support. But

what separates you to make you the rare and extraordinary circumstance that the Governor should

exercise this remedy?

KING: There’s only one I, and that is me. I have worked hard. There may be other prisoners who are

working as hard and doing the things that they need to do. But I’m trying to do what I need to do. There

are – there was opportunities back in the

’70s, in the ’80s, in the ’90s to make changes. As you know – as you may know, there’s no longer a

graduate program in the prison system, so people are less likely to get a graduate degree in the prison

system. There are less opportunities to create programs in the prison system as there were before. So

there are less programs being created and coordinated by prisoners in the prison system.

The restrictions and the – because of the restrictions and the change of climate, it’s very difficult for

people to achieve. And hopefully there will be some success stories in the prison system. I would like to

think there are. I think I’m one of them. I would like to think that because of the opportunities that I have

been able to take advantage of, and also create, that I would be able to help someone else.

Now, as – Judge Burnham spoke about my volunteer activity and programs. We’re talking like 40 hours

a week throughout the week in various programs. I don’t know too many others that are doing this. But

there may be. And if they are, I applaud them and I support them because there is a need for that to

happen, only because it was – there was a little bit available for me, and as a way of giving it back, and

I’m going to continue to do that.

I like to think that I can do more, but if there’s more people around, maybe I can connect with them, and

maybe we can work together. At Bay State, there’s little opportunity. One correction that I would like to

make that she referred to. She referred to me as the organizer of a computer lab. In fact, I just completed

16

the first phase. I’m not the organizer. I’m just another participant in that. And I spend 10 hours down

there. So – I would like to be an organizer. (laughter)

WALSH: Hopefully, that won’t be the determining factor in (inaudible). OK. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr.

Dewey?

DEWEY: Mr. King, in the homicide that occurred on 10/20/71, were there any mitigating circumstances?

KING: Mitigating – I’m responsible. I took the gun and shot the man. And any other – anything that

would be mitigating, I would assume you’re referring to drugs, under the – you know. In the past, I tried

to explain that, and I’ve always felt like I was leaning. I was relying on – I was kind of leaning on the

drug story, the fact that I was under the influence. I don’t want to do that. It’s well known that I had a

drug problem. It’s well known that my – what troubles me is the fact that I killed a man. Regardless of

my age, regardless of the drugs, regardless of the time of night, I did that. And it pains me. It pains me to

the point where sometimes I don’t even want to talk about it, because I feel like I’ve become so detached

from that incident that I’m not that person today. But when I work with you, I have to talk about it.

When I go to my meetings, I have to talk about it. And so, you know, I’m talking about it today as well.

But reliving it over and over again, though it’s painful, it’s necessary. But I don’t want to use or rely

upon the fact that I was under the influence, the fact that I was chasing drugs, the fact that I was young,

the fact that I had never fired a gun before, the fact that – I don’t want to do that. And so –

DEWEY: The Trial Court of the Commonwealth found you guilty of murder one. Do you feel that was a

just or unjust verdict?

KING: First degree. I was convicted of first degree, and it’s a legitimate sentence. I was either going to

be sentenced to life or death. As you know, they pursued the death penalty, and the jury came back with

clemency.

DEWEY: You did try the defense of diminished capacity?

KING: No, I did not.

DEWEY: Were you high – we know you were a drug addict. Were you sober that night, or were you

high?

KING: No, I was under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

DEWEY: Under the influence. And were there any aggravating circumstances?

KING: Aggravating? Meaning?

DEWEY: That’s mitigating. Aggravating, the opposite, that made it worse.

17

KING: I think because I was – at that time, I was angry at myself. I was confused. I was – I was a mess.

And certainly that – those factors was a composite of who I was.

DEWEY: You were a young man. You keep referring to that, but is it fair to say that the age of maturity

at that time was 17-years old, and you were 18 years and 10 months?

KING: Yeah, I was 18 – yes.

DEWEY: So you weren’t barely out of juvenile. You were a young man.

KING: Right. Yeah, I was a young man.

DEWEY: And the great state of New Hampshire paroled you two days before.

KING: True.

DEWEY: And the great state of New Hampshire said Mr. King was ready to live in the community

crime-free. It took you two days to cross state lines, come to Massachusetts, and commit a homicide.

And the end result of this hearing, if we gave you a favorable recommendation, would be the same result

the great state of New Hampshire said, parole Mr. King to the street. The last time you were paroled to

the street, you lasted two days. Can you speak to that?

KING: The last time I was paroled was in 1971, yes. And I received parole from New Hampshire. As I

explained before, in the last hearing, and I’ll do it again today, that was an automatic parole. They just –

they gave you. After seven months being in prison, they opened the door, and I walked out. I wasn’t

prepared. I know I wasn’t prepared. I knew I wasn’t prepared then, because I was chasing – while in the

joint, while in prison, I was using. Upon release, immediately, I just continued that lifestyle, that path. I

wasn’t prepared. I wasn’t – I didn’t have goals. I wasn’t thinking about being a responsible person. I

certainly wasn’t thinking about citizenship.

Now, 2004, I’ve spent my life in prison. I’ve grown up in prison. I’ve matured. I’ve developed. And

I’m going to continue to develop. And I’m preparing myself, hopefully, for the eventual return to society,

because I got – I have to do better than this. And I believe I can do better than this. And it’s possible.

DEWEY: As far as the homicide itself was concerned, what was it? An armed robbery?

KING: Initially it was – we left New Hampshire to purchase some drugs. By the time I’d shot and killed

John Labanara, it had become a robbery.

DEWEY: When was the intent developed?

KING: As I understand it, there was discussion between the two people in the car on the way down.

Instead of going to purchase drugs, there was going to be a robbery. I wasn’t – I was in the backseat, but

18

as you know, I was out. But that didn’t excuse me, because a robbery for me – I grew up robbing.

DEWEY: Right.

KING: So it wasn’t nothing new. If someone had said to me, this is going to be a robbery, or let’s do a –

you know, I grew up doing that.

DEWEY: Right.

KING: So it wasn’t nothing that I wasn’t aware of. But I wasn’t aware of that particular change. And as

I understand it, it was a robbery when I approached Peter, and the man was getting in his – going to his

car, he had tried to rob him then.

DEWEY: So it was within about the last minute?

KING: Right, those seconds. And I went to the car with the gun in my hand, and I asked him where the

drugs were. Now –

DEWEY: Then what happened?

KING: Then what happened is he tried to take off, and I shot him.

DEWEY: Why?

KING: I shot him because – there’s no reason. There’s no excuse. I was upset. I was frustrated. I was

angry. Those aren’t excuses. Those aren’t justifiable reasons to shoot a man. So, if you’re looking for

logic as to why I killed him, there is none. I can’t give you any logic, any logical reason why I killed him.

But what I’m saying to you is that I have to be able to understand it more, and as difficult as it is for me to

admit to you this full disclosure, I have to do it. I have to do it not just to you, I have to do it to whoever I

come in contact with. There’s no logical reason. Anger, frustration, that’s not logical enough to kill

another human being.

DEWEY: When Ms. Walsh was questioning you, she was asking you with regard to the Governor’s

guidelines, and one of the questions she asked you, are you looking for – regarded any relief through

other channels. And you answered “at this time.” What do you mean by that?

KING: Well, no I meant currently I’m not – I have pursued my court appeals, and this is the process, the

commutation policy is available. And that’s the one that I’m – that’s the avenue that I’m working on

now. And I’ve been working on this avenue for several years. It’s not like, well, I’ve got something else

– you know, there’s a plan B. No. At this time, I’m seeing it right now.

DEWEY: Plan A, or this is it?

KING: This is it.

19

DEWEY: Right, and as far as your institutional behavior, it was pretty bad early on. But what I find

surprising is that you’re still picking up tickets, (inaudible) not major ones, in the last few years. You

haven’t been able to stop getting them. Why?

KING: Well, as Judge Burnham said, three and a half years, I haven’t received any reports. And that’s

something. That’s an accomplishment for me. Early in my incarceration, I was receiving D reports like I

received letters from home. I understand that. And now there is a conscious effort to avoid getting

reports. What does that mean? That means not being all over the place. That means if there’s a rule,

respecting that rule. A report that I received recently in the last – I think it was 19 – no, 2001 – there was

a report, maybe that the report was about headphones. They have a policy, a rule, that says you have to

wear headphones if you’re going to listen to your TV, radio. Well, I happened to fall asleep with the

headphones on. And the night watchman, the 11:00 to 7:00 shift, walked by. The TV was on. The

headphones was down here. He opened the door and says, if you’re going to watch your TV – now I’m

asleep. If you’re going to watch your TV, you’ve got to wear your headphones. I turned the TV off. But

nevertheless, a report was issued. Those are the type of reports that I’d received. The reports that

sometimes may be overlooked. They’re not disruptive. They’re not offensive or assaultive. But

nevertheless, they’re reports. And I wish I didn’t have those. I wish I could come in here with a clean

record of 32-plus years and no D reports. But that’s not happening today.

DEWEY: As far as your institutional behavior now, it’s what one would expect of a good inmate. You are

a good inmate now.

KING: Thank you.

DEWEY: But we’re looking to go beyond just you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing. Now why

should His Excellency commute your sentence? Because that’s what we’re talking about.

KING: Yes, and I think because – you referred to me as a good inmate. But I think I’m better than that. I

think –

DEWEY: I just said the last few years. I qualified it.

KING: Well, there’s more to me than just the disciplinary record. There’s more to me than just the crime.

There’s more to me than just being a program participant, or a creator of programs. There’s more to me.

I’m a family man. I’m a friend. I’m a brother. I’m an uncle. There’s more to me. And because of that, I

think that looking at me in that light that you’ll see some positive strengths. And you won’t look at me as

one who simply is a good inmate who has not picked up tickets. Because on the one hand, I can be

criticized for the amount of tickets that I may have accumulated over the years, but then I’m not – you’re

going to look at me and you’re going to say, well, OK, maybe you’re just con-wise, because you haven’t

20

picked up any in the last couple of years. And to me that doesn’t compute.

I think that the fact that I’ve been able to change my life in a great way is you see examples of that by the

fact that I haven’t received any D reports in the last three and a half years, and the fact that I’ve been at

Bay State for 14 – for 13 years. Bay State is a prison where people leave if they have problems with the

authorities. They – they can shoot you somewhere else. I’ve been able to maintain my position as a good

inmate at Bay State. And I hope to continue to do that. That’s why I think that the recommendation and

hope that the recommendation will be favorable.

DEWEY: And there’s close to 700 – I don’t know – I haven’t seen the statistics lately, but 700 to 750

murder one inmates in the system. What makes you the one that the Governor should focus in on and

give executive clemency to?

KING: Mr. Dewey, I would hope that I would get some consideration because this Board feels like I’m

least likely – or I’m not going to re-offend. That I have the skills, and have made the exceptional strides

that will place me in a community and be a contributor to that community. That I’ve worked on what

brought me to prison. Not only the crime itself, but the circumstances in my life at the time. And that

those issues will not create another senseless murder. I like to think that this Board will look at me and

see that I have potential. That I’m able to make contributions while in prison or/and while in the

community in a positive way. Now, there may be others in prison that are capable of doing that. But I’m

only here representing myself today. In the past, I’ve represented those individuals that you referred to,

the first degree lifers. I’ve represented them in various capacities. But today, I’m speaking for Arnie

King.

DEWEY: Thank you.

WALSH: Mrs. McDonagh.

MCDONAGH: Good afternoon. I wanted to learn more about your work with your programming,

because I assume that’s part of what you’d want to do in the community, is continue that work. You were

a founder of Barbed Wire?

KING: Through Barbed Wire.

MCDONAGH: And it said from May ’98 to the present?

KING: Right.

MCDONAGH: It says you consult with schools and agencies on youth issues in criminal justice, counsel

students, parents, and educators. And then you wrote some book reviews for community publications.

Can you tell me the schools that you’ve consulted with and the agencies?

21

KING: Well, I’ve worked with various agencies, City School’s here, the City School is here. I’ve also

worked with schools in the Boston area.

MCDONAGH: What schools?

KING: Dorchester High and Brighton High. They’ve come out to Bay State through the Prison Voices

program. And I’ve initiated contact with them, and brought them out, and actually conducted workshops

on their behalf.

MCDONAGH: What was the nature of the workshops?

KING: Violence prevention, juvenile delinquency, and substance abuse.

MCDONAGH: And how many students would you see at a given time?

KING: We have anywhere from 15 to 25 students that come out. Sometimes their parents, because they

need parental consent. Their parents will chaperone them, and their teachers as well. In the past, we’ve

also been able to bring out administrators, particularly from Milton High. Milton High has had their

principal, their high school principal come out as well.

MCDONAGH: How did you initiate contact with the Boston Public Schools to create this opportunity?

KING: Well, it’s a matter of working – first initiating contact through the agencies. There’s community

centers, the Boston community centers. I’ve worked with the Violence Prevention Project, 1010 Mass

Ave. And through them, I’ve been able to make contacts in the Boston Public School system. In 1992,

Joanne Tautier testified before this panel at the commutation hearing, and she spoke about the work that I

was involved with 1010 Mass Ave. And so we’ve been able to develop the networking through different

agencies, and they in turn have brought schools out. And the schools consistently have been coming out

over the past years.

MCDONAGH: Have you done any work with DYS?

KING: Yes, we have. In fact –

MCDONAGH: What specifically?

KING: Well, Hassan Smith was in the violent offenders, the secure in Westborough. And he would come

up – he came up about a year, in 1988. Because he was 16 at the time and committed a homicide. And

I’ve worked with Roslindale, as well as the Boot Camps at DYS.

MCDONAGH: How many workshops have you done in the past year?

KING: In the past year, I do a workshop once a week.

22

MCDONAGH: Once a week consistently for the past year?

KING: Yeah, except during the summer. Some summers, for the (inaudible) the schools break down

during the summer, and we pursue –

MCDONAGH: And they come to you each time?

KING: They come to – they come to Bay State, and we actually do – we work on training other prisoners

to do self-disclosures, and we talk about particular issues. And so they come once a week (inaudible).

MCDONAGH: Is there an interactive piece?

KING: The first part is the presentation. The personal disclosure. Who you was as a kid, the mistakes

you’ve made, and what led you to prison. And what’s going on in your life in prison. The second part

are the questions and answers in which they have an opportunity to ask questions directly to one

individual or to a group. And we respond to that.

MCDONAGH: You said you also worked with City Year, is that the same process?

KING: No, not City Year.

MCDONAGH: I’m sorry, City School.

KING: City School.

MCDONAGH: Yeah, is that the same process that they identify students that they bring down to you?

KING: Yes, and they bring students who – some are court involved. And others are prep school kids.

And they come in on a regular basis.

MCDONAGH: OK. Also, on your Prison Voices, could you talk a little bit about what those workshops

entail?

KING: Well, the workshops entail working with the same schools, particularly the local ones, Foxboro,

Mansfield, Attleboro, King Phillip, and they come out. And it’s a different form in that they’re not from

the city. And so we give them the opportunity to ask questions as well, and they listen to some of – but

the City School and the DYS, they’re more focused on the violence, the gangs, the substance abuse.

MCDONAGH: Do you have any ongoing contact with those youth after you meet them?

KING: Not really. There’s no real follow-up. We don’t have any mechanism for that. But there are

opportunities where I may hear through a teacher, or through a counselor that the student now is going to

college, or he’s –

MCDONAGH: Or not.

23

KING: Or not.

MCDONAGH: So it’s a one-shot deal, that it’s basically a workshop where kids come, and you have an

opportunity to share some wisdom, and your experience, and hope that it makes some impact on them?

KING: And sometimes there’s more. It’s more than just a one-shot deal. Like City School. City School

is more consistent. That’s an agency that we do have follow-up to.

MCDONAGH: It’s part of their mission, really.

KING: Right. Right. But in terms of like the high schools, the regional high schools, we don’t have a lot

of follow-up. Unless, as I say, the teacher comes in and says that he’s had a success – there’s been a high

success rate in the last class.

MCDONAGH: Right. And I understand a lot of your program is really – you’re sort of self-starter

around a lot of developing very positive program here, but I’m wondering in terms of I know that a lot of

inmates are recommended for CRA. Were you ever recommended for CRA?

KING: No, because of my sentence, I’m not eligible. There’s certain programs that I’m not eligible for.

MCDONAGH: I see. OK. So of all the programs that you’re involved with, I see quite a bit that you’ve

done here. What has the most impact to you? What means the most to you?

KING: Well, I like the youth program. I like to work with the youth, and hopefully deter them from

making the mistakes that I made.

MCDONAGH: Do you identify with them?

KING: Yeah. Yeah. I identify particularly with them – well, in all ways. Because those who are on the

verge of dropping out of school, I identify with that. But I also know that there’s been missed

opportunities. There was missed opportunities in my life. And there are probably missed opportunities in

theirs as well. I grew up and I had an opportunity to go to a prep school when I was 16, from reform

school, because they thought that I was exceptional, and they was going to give me a shot to go to prep

school. I went through a summer program at Dartmouth College, and at the end of that program, I had an

opportunity to maybe go to Phillips Exeter Academy, or one of those. But I wasn’t prepared for that.

MCDONAGH: Was there any –

KING: So I –

MCDONAGH: I’m sorry.

KING: I just wanted to say, so when I share that experience with the youth, I’m sharing it so that they

know that if they have opportunities – and I talk about why I didn’t choose to go to the prep school.

24

Because I wanted to go hang out in the poolrooms, and on the streets with kids, my peers. And I talk to

them about that, hoping that they will understand that that decision, when I was 16, led me to where I am

today. And maybe they can identify to some degree with that.

MCDONAGH: Was there anything anybody could’ve said to you at that time? Including an inmate

talking to you, that would’ve made a difference to you?

KING: That probably would’ve helped, if I’d had a program like a Prison Voices or one of those. But

there was people who was talking. You know, my parents were talking. My mother cried when I made

that decision.

MCDONAGH: I can see why. Yep, I can see why. All right. Thank you.

WALSH: It’s a little unfair, but I just want to follow-up on one. Mr. King, do you ever give any thought

if you stayed along that path of exceptional behavior before all this happened? Maybe it just dawned on

me. Did it ever dawn on you, of your exceptional qualities before? And had you stayed in prep school,

or Philips Academy –

KING: I never made it there. I never made it to the school.

WALSH: What would you have become?

F: President.

(laughter)

KING: You know, she asked me a couple of weeks ago what I wanted to do. Where I wanted to be in

five years, or whatever. And I told her I wanted to be a principal to try to stop kids from dropping out

like I did. Now, I know people who have went through the ABC program, A Better Chance, that led me

to Dartmouth College. And doctors and lawyers. That’s what they’ve become. So maybe that could’ve

happened. But I must work on what’s going on today. And I can’t constantly dwell on that. I have to

work on what’s going on today, and so there’s a goal. The goal is to be able to accomplish tasks, a Ph.D.,

a position in the community that I can do. I can achieve. I can’t go back to Phillips Exeter Academy. But

I can pursue goals today that are worthwhile.

WALSH: Thank you. Mrs. Kochin.

KOCHIN: Good afternoon, Mr. King.

KING: Good afternoon.

KOCHIN: I certainly have reviewed all your – the documentation that was provided to us, and a lot of the

questions that I had have already been answered by you. But I do have one question. And I want to

25

comment that you have worked very hard during your incarcerated – and accomplished quite a bit. And

you are to be commended for that.

KING: Thank you.

KOCHIN: And along with that, as well, over the 700-plus first-degree murderers, I’m sure there are more

people that do very much of the same.

KING: Right.

KOCHIN: And in the guidelines of the clemency and commutation, there needs to be some extraordinary

circumstances that Arnold King needs or is asking to have his sentence commuted, and I would like you

to tell me what your extraordinary circumstances that puts you different from others that have

accomplished a lot today that would ask that. If you can answer that.

KING: Well, I’ve grown up in prison. And the work that I’ve done I believe has helped not only myself,

but many other people. People who come before you on a regular basis, and they talk about Prison

Voices, Growing Together, AA. And they talk about the fellowship program. The fellowship program

has been around since 1959. I haven’t been a part of it since then, but I’ve been a part of it since the ’70s,

and I’ve played significant roles and held positions in that program since then. So what have I done that

distinguishes me from others, that would warrant a favorable recommendation?

I think that it’s so important that – for you to recognize, one, that I’ve been able to maintain not only

family ties, which many people have not, but a whole community. And the community is so important.

It’s not just Boston communities, but as you know, I’ve lived in New Hampshire. And I have a

community up there. I have a community in Baltimore, in Maryland. In Delaware. I have community all

over, up and down the East Coast. And I’m going to help that community. I’m going to contribute to that

community, and they’re going to continue to help me. So I’m just grateful that they’re with me. Because

it means so much. I’m not alone. And it’s sad to some degree that I had to bring them to prison. Because

I don’t like that. But this is where I am. I don’t like the fact that people have visit me in prison. But this is

where I am, and I ask them to come. Because I need to see them. I need to touch them. I need to be

around them. Bring the babies. I told them, bring the babies today. Because I need to see babies.

What makes me different? I don’t like to toot my horn. I really don’t. But I need you to know that I am

unique. And I had to find that uniqueness in me, and I did it with the support of people in here. Because

they pointed it out, and they encouraged it, and they helped me polish it up. Without them, you wouldn’t

be seeing me today as I am.

KOCHIN: Thank you. I have nothing else.

26

WALSH: Mrs. Hooley.

HOOLEY: Good afternoon, Mr. King.

KING: How are you doing?

HOOLEY: I think that I’m in a unique position in that I was at your first hearing, the Advisory Board of

Pardons. And, however, not the last hearing. But back again. And I tell you quite frankly I remember

that the Board wanted to do something for you. And I was reading the opinion, and I appreciate Attorney

Berkin pointing out, tailoring a letter specifically to when I was on the Board, and would I take a look at

you now. And the fact is that you did have strides, and great strides (inaudible), that wasn’t the issue.

And certainly to get a split decision the last time, you certainly changed the whole kind of focus in terms

of your responsibility. And I hear it today much different than in 1992. I would think that that would’ve

helped you also, as painful as it was, to come to terms with that. Because we also recognize that lot of

petitioners or people coming up for the first time don’t want their families, their supporters to hear some

of the details, which are very painful. And that might’ve been part of it. So coming to terms with it was

probably pretty critical in terms of how you relate to all these young people. And I do want to make a

comment that you didn’t go backwards. You kept going forwards. And you didn’t lose your support, you

gained support. You’re taking full responsibility for the offense, which is part of the guidelines, as Miss

Walsh pointed out in Section G. You didn’t meet the guidelines in 1992. It’s 12 years later.

And I also want to make a comment that most people we see that succeed have had some basic values

growing up. Even before I heard that you had that opportunity at Dartmouth College, you had. You

knew when you could be good and when you could be bad. And you were 18. The crime was a difficult

one, it was first degree. So I do see the difference, and I would think the focus of taking responsibility,

probably, how would you relate that to how you feel today?

KING: Well, I know I blew an opportunity in ’92 to – but I couldn’t bring it out. I just couldn’t

communicate. And then in 2002, I heard Attorney Moynihan. He was the friend of John Labanara who

came here and spoke about his friend. They played hockey together. They did things that I did with my

friends growing up. And how he communicated in a way that he missed his friend. He was grieving.

And he had all that time from ’71 until 2002. It didn’t seem like he had ever been able to, and this was the

forum that he did it in. And I had to sit there. I wanted to run. I had to sit there, and listen, and feel what

I had did.

KOCHIN: So it humanized that whole offense?

KING: It made it more vivid. It made it more vivid.

27

KOCHIN: And as painful as it is, it sounds like you’re dealing with that, and moving on. OK. Thank you.

KING: Thank you.

MERRIGAN: Good afternoon, Mr. King.

KING: Good afternoon.

MERRIGAN: You’ve had many accomplishments since you’ve been incarcerated. But I’d like to know

what’s the one most important accomplishment that you’ve had since you’ve been incarcerated? The

most meaningful.

KING: I think for me it has been education. And that’s important because I know it makes a difference

not only in my life, but in other peoples’ lives. You know, when I first came to prison, the neighbors in

Maryland used to ask my mother, where’s Arnie? How come we don’t see him come home for

Thanksgiving and

Christmas? And she would say, initially, that he’s away at school.

(laughter)

MERRIGAN: I see no humor in that, because I listened to the tapes a couple of years ago, and I think you

were very proud of the fact that when you completed your degree, you were able to send it to your

mother, and with pride. That’s not humor. I think that’s an accomplishment.

KING: What is important is that I felt she needed to see this. Now, my father – my father passed in 2000.

We never could straighten out the differences between us. And I’ve talked about this in groups.

MERRIGAN: I want to keep you focused, because we have many people who (inaudible).

KING: Yeah. But I just wanted to say that I think that he would’ve been proud. I know that in 1990 there

was a graduation at North Fork in which I received my master’s in Liberal Arts. And, in fact, 60 Minutes

was there for the ceremony. And my father was in the audience. And he said, good job. But I think he

would’ve been really proud about – for me to be doing what I’m doing.

MERRIGAN: And that’s a very easy question for me to ask. But a more difficult one is what is your

biggest regret?

KING: That I came to Boston that night. That I made decisions that, you know, you can’t undo. I made

decisions that I got to live with. I’ve got to face up to it. I’ve got to take full responsibility. And I’ve got

to be able to handle it. My regret is that I shouldn’t have been in Boston that night.

MERRIGAN: And my last question, in the event that you were granted a commutation, and then

subsequently a parole, could you tell me realistically what your short-term goal would be, and then what

28

your long-term goal would be?

KING: I have a short-term goal of being able to just maybe learn how to swim. And a long-term goal

would be to be a positive contributor in a community setting, my neighborhood. To be a part of a

neighborhood, and not to be out there as I was as a kid creating havoc, but being able to help and be of

service in a particular neighborhood. Doesn’t have to be a large neighborhood. It could be small. But I

want to be a part of a neighborhood. And that’s a long-term goal.

MERRIGAN: Thank you, sir.

WALSH: Thank you. With that, we’ll move to the stage of the hearing that I’m sure many people are

anxiously awaiting, the public testimony. We’ll start with those in support. So in whatever way that you

would like to organize it, Attorney Berkin. Are you going to be handling this portion of the hearing?

BERKIN: I am, Ms. Walsh. And before I introduce the witnesses, if I could make some brief comments,

please.

WALSH: Sure.

BERKIN: You brought up in your questioning of Mr. King, asking him what qualities were seen by

others that early on in his incarceration, early on in his reaching out to a community of supporters. And I

just wanted to point out to you some documents that are in the record, one of which includes a psychiatric

report of Mr. King dated January 31st, 1972, which was part of the criminal proceedings in Suffolk

Superior Court. The court-appointed psychiatrist recognized and wrote that Mr. King’s intelligence was

estimated at the bright normal to superior range. In 1975, when Arnie was at Walpole, and the times were

very tumultuous, he was being considered for transfer to Block 10, the departmental segregation unit. He

was working at that time with a staff psychologist by the name of William Clark, who wrote a report to

the institutional and departmental officials about their considering Arnie for placement in the DSU. And

he wrote that – in his conclusion in this report dated November 24th , 1975, that “no pattern of habitual

violence shows up in Arnold’s record. At times, as a youth, he acted impulsively. He and I are dealing

with this in counseling. If he were a threat to the safety of others at Walpole, it would’ve been in

evidence before this. He appears clearly manageable by the usual Walpole methods. Meanwhile, I hope

he will continue to study law, write poetry, go on with counseling, and grow up. The right kind of

discipline and learning can help him, DSU placement cannot. (inaudible) at this time, if unjustified, can

reinforce antisocial learning and can make therapy more difficult. Progress out of Walpole may be much

delayed.” Arnie was not placed in the DSU, and he continued in therapy with the psychologist, Mr.

Clark. And obviously has gained the wisdom, and support that he now has before this Board.

WALSH: And maybe my question wasn’t artfully posed, but it was more to see what Mr. King thought

29

introspectively than what other – the people in the community – the people in the community are clear as

to the qualities. I just wanted to see what Mr. King thought introspectively, but thank you.

BERKIN: Ms. Walsh, let me first give you a letter and a packet of material which includes some letters

and statements that have not yet been provided to the Board. The first is a copy of a letter from Boston

City Councilor at Large Felix Arroyo to Governor Romney, dated April 15th , 2004. A copy of a letter

from Boston City Councilor Charles “Chuck” Turner to Governor Romney, dated May 9th , 2004. A copy

of a letter from State Representative Paul Demakis to Governor Romney, dated May 28th . An original

letter from State Representative Patricia Jehlen to Governor Romney, dated June 3rd , 2004. A copy of a

letter from Glenn Koocher, Executive Director of Massachusetts Association of School Committees to

Governor Romney, dated June 9th , 2004. A copy of a letter from Mr. Koocher to Daniel Winslow, the

Governor’s Chief Legal Counsel, June 9th , 2004. An original letter from Representative Jehlen to the

honorable members of this Board, dated a few days ago, apologizing for her inability to be present at this

hearing today and assuring the Board of her continued strong support for Mr. King. There’s an original

letter from Keith Harvey, the Executive Director of the American Friends’ Service Committee to the

Board, dated July 20th , 2004. A copy of a letter from Representative Byron Rushing to the Board,

expressing once again his oftenexpressed support for Mr. King’s commutation and apologizing for his

inability to be present today. And he has sent the original of that letter to the Board. And five original

certificates presented to Mr. King for successful program participation, dating from December 2002

through this month.

WALSH: Thank you.

BERKIN: So we’d like to have that made as part of the record, please. In terms of the witnesses that we

would like to call, we’ll try to break them down into groups. And first we’d like to ask the elected

representatives who are present to come up and testify, and we’ll make room. Gloria Fox, Charles

“Chuck” Turner, and Felix Arroyo, who I believe are all present here today.

WALSH: Mr. Berkin, if you want to sit up there, that’s fine, if more chairs for the attorneys are needed.

Good afternoon.

FOX: Good afternoon.

WALSH: I’m not going to choose who goes first out of the three of you, so.

FOX: I’ve already done that. Pardon my voice. I do have a cold. I want to thank the Committee for

taking us out of turn, and for giving us the opportunity to once again appear before this body in Arnold

King’s behalf and in behalf of his petition for commutation of sentence. The Massachusetts Legislative

Black Caucus all support Arnie King’s petition for commutation of sentence. As you know, the caucus

30

supported his previous petition. We have written previous letters in support of this effort, attended

community meetings in Mr. King’s behalf, and presented testimony at the 2002 hearing.

“Mr. King is an example of a fully rehabilitated prisoner. He was convicted in 1971 for the murder of

John Labanara and entered Walpole Prison as a teenager, a young man, during a most tumultuous time in

the institution. While pursuing academic studies, he worked as a – in adult basic education programs as

an assistant teacher. As he addressed personal substance abuse issues, he became a peer counselor,

produced workshops, and coordinated weekly meetings. He exemplified the true meaning of recovery.

The decision to make a significant change occurred very early in Mr. King’s incarceration period. After

several years in prison, he registered for a training cycle in juvenile counseling, and became active with

the Reach Out program, designed to work with high-risk youth. For over 30 years – over 30 years – he

has volunteered services to Massachusetts youth and families, with many offering testimonies of success

and appreciation.

We have read the statements of Hassan Smith, a Suffolk County Corrections Officer, at the last meeting.

We met with Mr. King on a weekly basis as a juvenile offender under the custody of the Department of

Youth Services. In addition to the counseling and educational roles with hundreds of young people, Mr.

King contributes as a writer in community publications, as well as hosting quarterly poetry readings at

prison. He expresses remorse, deep remorse, in words and action on a regular basis. We believe in every

way, we believe that every Massachusetts community will benefit by his presence and example. We

respectfully ask that you support a favorable recommendation of the – of this body, and that the sentence

be commuted at the earliest possible time. Yours, in community service, Benjamin Swann from

Springfield, the 11th Hamden District, Chairman of the Massachusetts Black Caucus.” And it’s signed

also by Jarrett Barrios, State Senator, Middlesex, Suffolk, and Essex District. State Representative Gloria

Fox, the Seventh Suffolk District in Boston. Shirley Owens-Hicks, State Representatives, Sixth Suffolk

District, Boston, Mattapan, and Dorchester. Byron Rushing – you’ve heard the letter from Byron – Byron

Rushing, State Representative, Ninth Suffolk District. Jeffrey Sanchez, one of the newest members of the

Massachusetts Legislative Black Caucus, State Representative, 15th Suffolk District, Roxbury, and a part

of JP – Jamaica Plain, for the record. Marie St. Fleur, State Representative, Fifth Suffolk District. And

she represents Dorchester and a part of Roxbury. That is the total and complete membership of the

Massachusetts Legislative Black Caucus. We have a newer member, Lantigua, who is not listed because

he was not elected at the time. Not a member of the Black Caucus at the time. Thank you very much for

listening to our statement once again. I have a bad cold. It’s not because of the Democratic Convention.

(laughter)

ARROYO: Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here and express myself in favor of Mr. King. I

31

want to begin by letting you know that I have an amazing respect for the role in which you have been

placed and the implications that that have for you as well as for society in making decisions in which you

will determine what is best not just for a particular inmate, but for our society in general. And I respect

that role.

I also want to tell you that I understand how horrible the crime that Mr. King committed when he was a

young person. He took away from our society a promising human being who have invested in his

education from his family and from all of us. And I strongly believe that Mr. King is fully aware of the

horror of his crime, and believe that his sentence was adequate according to that kind of crime for our

safety and our society and for making sure that people understand how valuable and precious the life of a

human being is. At the same time, I don’t take lightly supporting an inmate desire to really commute the

sentence. As a matter of fact, this is the first time in my life that I come and do this. And yet, I do believe

after being able to meet his family, see his record, pay a visit to him with his brother, that he impressed

me as a person who had turned that particular horror act into a way of showing not just to himself, but to

his family and the rest of the society, that people are not only capable of the worst things, but they are

also capable of the best ones. And to see that in the same human being is short of a miracle. I don’t see

many people that are able to do what Mr. King has been able to do under the kind of circumstances that

he did it. I don’t know many cases of that sort.

But I have been able to met him. I know the love that that family had for each other. I have seen it. I was

able to come with his brother, and see how they really long for each other.

END OF TAPE 1

ARROYO: – have met Mr. King feel that this is the right thing to do and join that with all my heart and

all my mind. Rehabilitation is an immense and difficult process. For all of us even to change a habit takes

so much focus and commitment from ourself. And to change around the way you are and to be able to

transform yourself is an amazing process. And I look with amazement at Mr. King, that showed to us

that, yes, that is possible, through his own acts and through his own process. It’s possible and I can see

how strong that determination was on his particular case, that regardless of all this kind of situation, that

he was going to move ahead. And I think that you also hear the same thing that I hear when he speak.

That he did that not just because of himself, but beyond himself, because there were people out there that

were trying to make sure that he was able to do it. And he was able to recognize that because he came

from a family that didn’t expect a member of their family to do what he did, and yet they stand with him

through all the ordeal for the 32 years. And they will continue, I’m sure, to do so.

The reason why I support this is not just because of what I have stated, but because it’s also an example

32

for many people who are in prison, people who are watching carefully what will happen to all the efforts

that Mr. King has put into changing himself. What will happen for a Board like yours making a

determination and a decision if they were to follow his example? And that will serve either as a

motivation or discourage for them. And therefore it place you in a hard situation, but I do believe it is

important to point it out because they are watching. They know what Mr. King has done during those 32

years. They see him everyday, 24 hours a day, everyday. And they know the effort that he put into this

and the circumstances and how difficult they are. They know that. Most of them probably have tried to

do the same, to no avail. And I’m sure that they admire his capacity of doing so and support his effort.

That make it really very serious, your duty at this stage, and I recognize that. Because they are watching

and whatever the Board do will have repercussion in encouraging or discouraging other inmates on

following his example.

I also support it because it’s not just those who are inside prison who will watch what will happen in the

case of Mr. King. It’s a lot of youngsters that he has been able to touch through many years that show

commitment and a new sensitivity to the implications of the act in the life of others, many of whom have

to think twice after they hear the experience that a person like Mr. King has gone through. And his

determination to make sure, if he can help it, that other people of his age, older and younger, don’t go

through it. I think they have seen how serious for Mr. King is the recognition and awareness of what he

did as he grow and develop into a real, full human being with sensitivities that he didn’t show when the

act was committed. And they see that. They see the kind of a mess that he was in and the circumstances

where he is now and the implications of his change. And so they, too, are watching will that make a

difference for Mr. King’s life.

And that’s why I believe it is important, this decision, at this point. Not just for the inmates, but also for

the life of so many young people that he already have touched. It is also important for people like me

who are public servants and feel that the system, with all its faults, have processes that if people are able

to follow, will have succeed. And it will determine if we shall trust that process or not, to be very frank.

The process is in place, the process is important, the structures that we have are, and you appointment to

fulfill that process is as well important. But we want the system to function and to recognize these kind

of situations as well. And so for us it is also important what you will do at the end. And I think for the

society in general it’s important to perceive that although we have structures to take away those who are

unable to follow the rules of living with each other, those who break them, and particularly those who

break them as Mr. King put it, with act that cannot be taken back and with results that are impossible to

take back as well. That we as a society also have processes by which if you are able to change, you will

be rewarded. And that the society is there not just to punish, but to rehabilitate. So the whole process

33

become important for all of us.

Those are the reasons why I support Mr. King request. Because I believed strongly that his actions, his

behavior, the way in which he has persevered, and his determination to really change himself not just for

himself, but for his family, and his newfound reason to live as a productive member of this society is real

and deserve recognition. I believe that this is such a case, that kind of an instance when we can really

showcase what it’s possible to do, and Mr. King that kind of a person that could show that.

So I think that it’s important to show that if deserved it, your sentence will be commuted. And I think that

this is a clear case in which that is and has been shown. I know that you are diligent in what you do, that

your job is hard and difficult, and I want to acknowledge again the importance that your work have for all

of us and your function in this society as a public servant to make determinations that actually impact the

whole society. I hope that after you carefully analyze this case you come to the same conclusion that I

have come, that this will benefit not him and his family, not just the young people he already have

touched, but all of us. Because I am committed, and I want to tell you that if you do that, I will help Mr.

King to be successful because we need that kind of examples in our society. Thank you.

WALSH: Thank you.

TURNER: My name’s Chuck Turner. I’m City Councilor District Seven in Boston. I, too, would like to

thank you for this opportunity to come and to urge you to recommend to the Governor commutation.

It’s hard for me to believe that any of us could have heard what we heard Mr. King say this afternoon and

not completely believe in the fact that he’s taking responsibility for his action. So I won’t dwell on that

issue. I think the issue that’s been focused on a number of times is the question of what makes Mr. King

exceptional given the criteria that the Governor’s laid forth in his guideline for commutation? Over the

years I’ve worked with many men who’ve been in prison. Many of those men have made serious changes

in their lives. Many of them have been very creative and helpful to other men who were with them in the

institutions. Some of them have even found ways to reach out to those on the outside and provide benefit

beyond the prison walls. However, I personally – I have never seen anyone who has been able to create

the kind of relationship on a continual basis with youth outside the institution in which they were located

in order to impart to them the life learnings that they had gained through their own self-development

process.

And so I think what makes – to me, what makes Mr. King exceptional and certainly qualified to meet that

criteria in the commutation guidelines is the fact that he’s demonstrated so clearly not only his own self-

development, but his ability to then reach out beyond the prison to use that self-development to help

others develop themselves. And to me that is why it’s so important that you make the recommendation to

34

the Governor and that the Governor heeds your recommendation. Because the issue that he talked about

in terms of searching for the good inside himself and then struggling to bring that good out is one – is part

of the human condition. The dilemma is that as I work with those in my district, and particularly those

who are younger, the double issue of taking responsibility for your behavior despite the circumstances in

which you find yourself and combined with the struggle to believe in yourself and to believe that you can

go beyond what you see around you, what you see in your life is just – is difficult. It’s really, really hard.

And so we need more and more people who through their own struggle with their lives and their mistakes

can help all of us understand the value of taking responsibility and the process of really looking for the

good inside yourself and bringing that out.

Mr. King has demonstrated his ability to do that behind bars in a very effective way. Can you imagine

the effect that he will have in whatever community he’s in if he’s not behind bars, if he’s not restricted?

He’s a master teacher. He’s a master teacher and his subject area is life. We need people with his

understanding and his capability that he’s demonstrated among us to help us all grow. Thank you.

WALSH: Thank you.

BERKIN: Miriam Messinger is here. She’s the Executive Director of the City School, and some of her

colleagues – and I think she’s got childcare issues, so we’re going to call her now so she can say

(inaudible) to say, and then leave.

MESSINGER: Madam Chair, members of the Board, thank you for hearing from us, and thank you for

taking me out of order. It is truly an extraordinary person for whom I would bring my three-month old to

prison. So that’s for starters, and he’s crying in the back.

But I did want to have the opportunity to testify today because my work with Arnie King – my name is

Miriam Messinger. I’m the Executive Director of the City School. We’re a non-profit in Boston, and our

mission – we’re a center where we work with teenagers to take on critical issues of the day, to think about

civic responsibility and involvement, to get involved in their communities and to work for a better world.

I’ve been in this position for four years, and as an organization we’ve worked with Mr. King for about

seven years.

And I can say that he is – on the sign-in sheet I wrote that he’s a colleague of mine. I’ll talk briefly about

the work that we do and what I see that impacts on why I come here today to say I hope that you vote in

favor of commuting his sentence. I’ve seen Arnie in two capacities: one is as organizer and one is as

educator. He’s one of the core organizers of the Prison Voices group, as you know from other people’s

testimony. And that’s also a group that really supports our vision of youth leadership – finding the best in

young people whether or not they’re at a place where they’re seeing it in themselves, as Arnie talked

35

about himself, in fact, in that capacity. And helping them to exercise what’s best in them and to exercise

their leadership. So as an organizer of the group, he recruits other inmates, he helps to train them. They

have a very tight group where they really think about what their personal responsibility is and the terrible

crimes that they’ve committed. They think about what impact they can have on young people and how,

in telling their stories, they’re able to make a difference. And a key part of that is to be really dedicated

and organized to the group. So within the group, we go to quarterly meetings with the group, and I really

see Arnie helping to form that group, helping to have a good impact on his peers who are in prison, as

well as helping to develop really good product and approach to working with young people.

The other capacity where I see Arnie is as an educator. So we consider him one, and the other men in

Prison Voices, and the prisoners we work with in Suffolk County House of Corrections as educators in

our Prison Empowerment Project. That’s a program where we’re working with young people – I think

somebody had asked before whether it was a one-shot deal. We try and expand it somewhat so that people

are really considering the issues of crime and punishment. What’s a just response to murder? Is it just for

somebody like Arnie who’s been in prison for 32 years and has really made amends? What’s the next

step? What’s the – our ability as a whole to say what will bring most healing to the community? So we

surround the visit to the prison where they hear from inmates about their personal stories with

considerations of these issues, reflection, critical thinking, and the study of why as a society we’re having

such issues with crime and people in prisons.

And as an educator, young people are able to hear – Arnie’s voice is a very gentle voice. It’s a truthful

voice. It’s a voice with a lot of spirit. And although he’s been outside of our general community and has

been behind walls for over 30 years, he’s been able to – he finds a way to relate to young people and to

have an impact on them and to really be inquisitive as to where they are and how he might be of help,

even when it’s a short time period of two hours that they’re with him.

So he in the simplest ways uses his errors as a message and a tool. And I think there are three ways. So

those are the capacities in which I’ve seen him work, and there are really three things I see. And one

people have spoken to and I think is really important is that Arnie is a community-builder. So in what

might be one of the difficult places to build community, he exercise that, and he’s able to do that, and I

think that’s a really positive step in terms of how much more so would he be able to do that outside of the

prison walls. As I talked about, he does it within the Prison Voices group, and he does it even within the

sessions where young people come – often very scared. Wherever they are at in their lives, they know

they’re entering a room with people who have committed serious crimes, many of whom are doing life in

prison. And he’s able to break down those barriers and help them to really think about their own lives.

And something that is still hard for me to understand, you know, why would somebody take somebody

36

else’s life, regardless of being high or being angry, why would that happen, and how could that be just a

normal person who I might then have a conversation with? And Arnie’s able to use his experience and

break down those barriers.

He knows and I think he talked today a lot about how his action ultimately was very destructive of not

only one life, but of community – the victims’ lives, his own family’s lives suffered as well as his own.

And I think part of his reparations is to do what he can to help communities. To help young people who

may be struggling with some of the issues that he was. To help them see how they can make different

choices. And in doing that, I just see a web of community building happening. Young people don’t stay

in touch with him, but I often hear them talk about hearing the story, and meeting him, and the impact it

has on him.

And that’s the second piece that I really see is how he’s touched people. So through our program, he’s

spoken to hundreds of young people. I know that Prison Voices also works with other groups, and I’m

just focusing right now on the teenagers, and that aspect of his work. As I said, his is a voice because

young people really need to hear the truth, they’re able to hear him. He does talk about the wrong he did,

and does it in a way that’s accessible, and where they can believe it, and not just brush it off as sort of

saying, well, that’s easy for you to say. You’re saying that you’re sitting there, or your getting good time.

Why should I believe you? But he makes those connections, and he touches people. So I’ve seen that

directly with the young people, and I know he has the capacity to continue doing that on the outside. He

would continue to work with us in the Prison Empowerment Project were he to be free, and would

continue to touch people in those ways.

The third thing I wanted to talk about is about the power of transformation. And I think it’s an example

to me, it’s an example to the young people who’ve seen him, but not only has he transformed himself, but

I think one of the critical pieces, and one thing that I think would speak to him being able to maintain this

transformation should he be released is the power of the community that he’s gathered here today. And

you can’t just transform yourself – if you don’t really fully transform, you wouldn’t have family and

friends of this magnitude standing around you. So I think it relates to the community building, but I think

it’s also in being able to continue the circle and to have this many people come out and support him. It’s

because he’s really transformed, and he has the power and the impact to help transform other people, and

to work for good.

So these are the three pieces that I really wanted to touch on. I wanted to give some time to Salim Elijah

and to Joel to talk about their experiences directly. And I’d be open for questions. But those really are the

impacts that I see, have seen in my work with him, and know that he would continue to provide to young

people, and to adults alike in a really meaningful and spiritual way. Thank you.

37

SALIM ELIJAH: My name is Salim Elijah. Hi, my name is Salim Elijah, and my main thing is just to

really help people in my community like because me and my friends most of the time are dealing with

kids that are really going through it at like this current time, or whatever. And we need people like Arnie

that’s going to be able to talk to us and help us out. Let us know what’s going on in the long run. Because

a lot of us, we don’t really have fathers who talk with us to tell us like the real stuff about life. And as

Miriam was saying, or somebody else in the past was saying, like he’s somebody that helps – like he can

talk about life. There’s not many people that you come across that tells – that can help you out with like

life situations. And that’s mainly what we’re dealing with as young teens in the community. And being

subject to the prison system that we really need somebody that’s going to help us out and take us out of

the depths of the drugs and the stuff that goes on that we really don’t need to be in tune with.

WALSH: Thank you, sir.

LEWIS: Hello, my name is Joel Lewis. And this past school year, I worked with the Prison

Empowerment Project, and we would come up here on occasion – I mean to Bay State on occasions with

a group of students, either from the DRC, which is called the Day Reporting Center – it’s like a juvenile

detention center for teens – or like a group of suburb students from, say, Newton. And I would notice the

tremendous amount of effect that Arnie’s words had on them. Like even though the smallest things, like

giving them insight, and telling them to stay in school and take the educational path rather than the street

path. Because if you take the educational path, you can save your life. And we also had a lot of

discussion about joint venture. That was the main thing that we talked about in one discussion, and how

you being with somebody else when they commit a crime can affect your life also. So just him sharing

his life story, and giving us insight, even me, myself, it’s really changed all of our lives.

And we need people like Arnie in the community to be able to go out and give outreach to different

programs in order to prevent children and teens ending up in prison. Because it’s one thing to be behind

bars and be talking and be in a place like such as Bay State with a group like the Prison Empowerment

Project and talk about your personal struggles and give insight. But some may take it as that he’s a

hypocrite because he’s there. So it’s better, and it has more of a positive effect if he was in the

community doing this type of outreach. And – that’s about it.

WALSH: OK. Thank you very much.

BERKIN: (inaudible) who have time constraints so – is humanitarian, human rights activist, former State

Representative, and many other things, Mel King.

WALSH: Thank you, and you can take a seat, sir. Just to be mindful of time constraints, we’re at 20 of

5:00, and so my point being before was that whether one witness took 45 minutes, or 45 witnesses took

38

one minute, we have to have some reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions since all the Board has

responsibilities for cases to give as much attention to cases that they are going to hear and decide

tomorrow, and do preparation, witness, etc., for tomorrow’s as well as the rest of today’s work. So we’ve

gone now I have on my watch 30 minutes, and I’m sure that there are a lot of other people who want to

speak, so if everyone could tailor their comments. And Attorney Berkin, if you could assist in that,

because we still want to give equal time if anyone is here to speak in opposition.

BERKIN: While Mr. King gives his brief remarks, I’m going to consult with my client and other counsel

to figure that out.

WALSH: OK, thank you.

MEL KING: Thank you, my name is Mel King, and I’m Director of the South End Technology Center at

(inaudible) and Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I’m here because when

I went to meet with Mr. King, my first question was whether I could have a sense of remorse, because for

me that’s a big, big, big, big issue. To own the problems that you’ve generated, created with your

behavior. And I was incredibly impressed with that. And I say that because that’s what got me to come

here.

Another thing for me is about how one defines himself. Because I believe that there’s no change that

comes to any individual group without self-definition as being somebody, being deserving, and having a

right. And a right to a life where one can really express, and be the kind of person, and do the things that

is good not just for one’s self, but for others. And one – and I take Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words, who

says “people can move from self-interest to other interest.” And when you ask about what’s unique about

Arnie, as I see it, he’s been able to move from self-interest to other interest, and that’s one of the highest

forms of our humanity. Because we all live in a world where selfish interests prevail, and we see the

results of it. Somebody that would be able to move to other interests, for me, is the hallmark of someone

who really ought to be in the streets, and in working with people, as the young people have also

suggested.

Another thing I want to say is that – and Felix Arroyo talked about your awesome responsibility in this.

And I think it’s important that you have an opportunity to express the best of what our society can be.

And in my looking at things from the person who has had probably the most significant impact on the

world, because he has a lot of followers today, was a person who was on a cross, and was able to say

“Father, forgive them.” Forgive them. And one of the most humane characteristics that we can all have

is that of being able to forgive. And when we do that, we bring out the best in us, and the best of us.

Employing that kind of value orientation in this process, I think, says an incredible amount for a world

39

that’s in the kind of chaos where people are unwilling to forgive, unwilling to reach out so that we can

bring out the best. You have that opportunity to do that. It’s justified. And I hear this talk about the

uniqueness of this, and what has to happen in this situation in terms of the Governor. And, sure, he’s got

his thing. But I think you have something that is much greater than that one individual that can lead, and

lead, and lead in ways that a decision to commute makes. Thank you.

WALSH: Thank you very much.

BERKIN: Representative Paul Demakis wanted to be here to testify. Because of prior commitments and

the Democratic National Convention could not. About three weeks ago, we recorded a four-minute

statement he wants to make (inaudible). I’d like to play the tape for you, and have a copy of the tape for

you to keep for the record.

WALSH: Thank you.

F: Excuse me, Mr. Berkin, can we speak with all the witnesses before you put the tape on?

WALSH: Why don’t we take a five minute recess, and then we’ll come back.

(break in tape)

BERKIN: – we were going to play the tape of the testimony of Representative Demakis.

DEMAKIS: Chairperson Walsh and members of the Parole Board, good afternoon. For the record, my

name is Paul Demakis, and I’m the State Representative for the Eighth Suffolk District, which includes

parts of Boston and Cambridge. I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify this afternoon. I

would’ve preferred to be present at the hearing, but I am unable to be there because of other

commitments. I would, however, be very happy to answer any questions that you may have. I am going

to be leaving the United States on Friday evening, but you can reach me at my State House office before

then. Area code 617-722-2460.

I’m testifying this afternoon in support of the commutation of Arnold King. I urge you to recommend to

Governor Romney that he commute Mr. King’s sentence. I first became aware of Mr. King’s case two

years ago. It was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine. I was asked to express my support for

his commutation, and at the time I was extremely hesitant to do so. The reason was that I have been a

lifelong opponent of the death penalty. It has been a priority of mine in my ten-year career as a State

Representative to prevent the reinstitution of the death penalty in Massachusetts. In response to

arguments made by death penalty proponents, I have taken the position, in order to prevent the

reinstatement of the death penalty, that we should never allow anyone who has been convicted of first-

degree murder to be set free from prison. That they should be required to serve a lifetime sentence

40

without parole.

You may recall six years ago, actually nearly seven years ago, the nearly successful attempt to reinstate

the death penalty that failed by just one vote. I offered an amendment at the time that would have

prohibited commutation of any sentence of an individual convicted of first-degree murder. However, this

is a perfect example of the old maxim, never say never. There are always exceptions, and I believe that

this is an exception in this case. I have become convinced over the last couple of years that Mr. King has

made an extraordinary transformation in his life. Educating himself, and becoming a very valuable

individual in violence prevention and drug prevention efforts on behalf of our youth. He has become an

extraordinary citizen. In addition, he has now served more than 30 years of his sentence, and although the

length of time that he has been in prison will never be enough to take back or give back the life that he

took 30 years ago, no one can argue that serving over 30 years of time in prison for that crime has been

insufficient, especially in light of what he has done to transform himself.

So I ask that you take into account the extraordinary transformation that he has made and make an

exception in this very rare case, and recommend to Governor Romney that he commute Mr. King’s

sentence. Again, I thank you for your time, and for the opportunity to testify before you. And again, I

remain available for any questions that you might have. Thank you.

BERKIN: There’s a group of educators that we’d like to call, only one of whom we expect to speak, but

they will introduce themselves to the Board. Paula Verdet, Janet Jones, Reebee Garofalo, and Marty

Sawzin.

VERDET: I assume that – does the Board know that – are we to introduce each one ourselves?

WALSH: For the record purpose, it probably would be a good idea. Thank you.

GAROFALO: My name is Reebee Garofalo, Professor at UMass Boston.

VERDET: My name is Paula Verdet, Professor at the BU Prison Program.

JONES: My name is Janet Jones, former Professor at Cambridge College and Boston University.

Currently an international trainer.

SAWZIN: Martin Sawzin, Sociologist and Professor at Boston University Prison Education Program.

VERDET: I understand that we have two minutes. There is lots of things that we educators could say, as

you can imagine. But the one thing that at least I have the agreement of this person to my left that we

could say in two minutes is that had Arnie not made the decision to reject the opportunity that he had of

going to a prep school, he probably would be a brilliant professional at this time, probably completely lost

to the African-American community. And I think one of the reasons why we see such a number of people

41

pleading his case is that the education that he got, he is ready to put it at the service of the community and

be back there where they need him.

The other point is that we as educators in the prison see a lot of gifted individuals. Much, probably, to the

surprise of most of the society who know very little about this. But a lot of those people that we have as

students have a tendency to protect themselves. To stay and do the best they can with whatever resources

they have in the library, or courses, whatever. But it seems to me that they tend to protect themselves.

What Arnie has shown is that it is possible both to grow and to serve, and at least after 14 years in prison

trying to understand what’s going on, it seems to me that true rehabilitation can be obtained only when

individual inmates help each other face their past, their present, and their future, and are really of service.

And this is something that Arnie King has been a witness to and a model, precisely because for him the

growth has gone with the service.

WALSH: Thank you.

BERKIN: We have witnesses that speak to Arnie’s program participation, Justin Freed – Arnie help me

out. And –

KING: Tracy (inaudible), and Ilene, and Mel.

BERKIN: Why don’t you introduce yourself for the record.

MORAN: Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Eileen Bernadette Moran, and I’m a volunteer at Bay

State Prison, and I’ve facilitated courses with Arnie.

GENTILLE: Hello. Tracy Gentille, and I’ve co-facilitated with Arnie also.

FREED: I’m Justin Freed. I’m a facilitator in the Growing Together Program at Bay State. Thank you

very much for your time. I will be very brief. I’ve been working in the prison with Arnie as a facilitator

in the Growing Together Program for six years. I have seen a remarkable man continue to grow. I’m

very enthusiastic in my support for his commutation. I have seen him in action. I have worked with him.

And I would like to very, very briefly touch on the spiritual and emotional growth that I have seen,

because that is what we emphasize in the program, Growing Together.

The core values of Growing Together are service, honesty, change, compassion, and he exemplifies those

core values. In fact, he gets joy from giving. I feel a deep sense of remorse in Arnie which can only, in

my opinion, reading him, and working along side of him, and learning from him, the only way in which

he can possibly redeem his life is through a life of continual service. In our program, we talk about

certain values that we live by. Those are service, peace, honesty, taking full responsibility, making

amends, faith, humility, caring for others, unselfishness, ethical behavior, hope, making good choices,

42

thoughtfulness, commitment to sobriety, conflict resolution, and a lifelong commitment to those values.

When he hopefully is released, I will be part of his support system, and I heartily look forward to the

opportunity to be that. Lastly, I will finish with a quote from William James: “Human beings by

changing the inner attitudes of their minds can change the outer aspects of their lives.” Arnie King

exemplifies this. Thank you.

SPRINGER: My name is Melvin Springer. I had the opportunity to know and work with Arnie King for

his entire incarceration. Back in the ’70s, I was the Director of Adult Basic Education Program for the

MCIs, and in the ’80s, I administered the Norfolk Fellowship Program. Arnie worked for me in both of

these programs.

And when I first met Arnie, he was a young adolescent, in many respects immature. His major concern

was whether – who was the winner of the Celtics/Lakers game. During the years he became a much

deeper and introspective individual who has provided help and support to many people. As a teacher –

and I’d like to just mention in the fellowship program, where my wife and I continue to attend on

Wednesday evenings, just some of the topics and objectives which Arnie has introduced in order to try to

be able to bring about change. How do you make your prison life more productive? What steps you can

do. How not to return to prison upon re – how can one prepare for the re-entry process? How can one be

an effective father while in prison? How do you maintain communications with your family, particularly

if they’re estranged? How do you become a responsible citizen? These are some of Arnie’s concerns, and

his leadership with the fellowship trying to implement these ideas.

Regarding whether – why the Board and the Governor should really make this exception to releasing

Arnie King, Arnie King will be an immediate success. He has many friends and a tremendous support

system, but his education and experiences have made him able to influence and shape lives, many lives.

He will make a strong impact to the community. He will be a community leader, a teacher, a healer, a

beloved family member, and a friend of many. Arnie is going to be a very successful citizen of this

Commonwealth.

BERKIN: We’d like to present some individuals who can speak to Arnie’s future employment

opportunities, and speak briefly. Glenn Koocher, Carolyn Smith – Dr. Smith, (inaudible), Carolyn

Villers. And I’ve forgot (inaudible) name. And I’d like Martin Sawzin to come up as well and – because

he had a brief comment that he wanted to make, but we cut him off before.

WALSH: Why don’t you come up, sir. And before we begin, again, just as a reminder, anybody who

wants to make written statements, and certainly the Board has got voluminous records of written

statements in support are free to give to the Board, and we’ll keep the record open for a period of time

43

afterwards. If people feel that they have not been able to express themselves because of these time

restraints. But anything in addition to the written materials that you feel is essential to get across to the

Board that can only be said verbally, rather than having the Board members make it part of their record,

and put it in writing, it would be helpful if you could focus those comments now.

VILLERS: My name is Carolyn Villers. I’m the Director of a community-based program in Dorchester,

Commonwealth Business Associates.

BURSELL: My name is Sven Bursell, Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard

Medical School.

KOOCHER: Madam Chairperson, I will be very brief. I appreciate the time problem. I’m Glenn

Koocher, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. My connection

with this kind of movement goes back to 1967 when I was with the Phillips Brooks Prisons Program, and

I’ve worked with some individuals. As a member of the Cambridge School Committee, I personally

facilitated the employment of two inmates whose paroles were conditional in part upon receiving

employment. One of them was a convicted murderer. They both became successful employees.

I want to address two points very quickly. Number one, Arnie, because of his potential as a role model to

young people becomes very employable. Should he be available to us, I would without reservation start

making referrals to public school districts in the hope that they could use Arnie as a speaker, as a

motivator, as a conference presenter. Good judgment comes from experience, experience comes from bad

judgment, and Arnie made some serious mistakes 34 years ago. From his experience and rehabilitation

come wisdom and sound judgment. Arnie can also be an example to teachers, and this is a unique

perspective that he can have.

He’s grown in an extraordinary way. Once described as ignorant and illiterate, from my conversations

with him, I find him extremely perceptive, extremely mature, and extremely intelligent. Many educators

fail to see the potential in students at risk, students who are perceived as illiterate, as hopeless, as

unmotivated. Arnie’s one who had great potential, but failed to deploy it. But with Arnie’s help, as a

speaker, a motivator, and a role model, more educators will be able to see that behind an angry,

unmotivated, illiterate, or underperforming student can still be in the future a responsible adult, a

contributor to society, an extremely successful human being.

That’s why I intend to be part of Arnie’s team assisting him in finding employment, becoming a

productive use to society. I have a much longer statement in writing, which I’ll present to you in the

interest of time. Mr. Bursell is here to help Arnie with networking and introductions to the business

community. Ms. Villers is eager to help in employment in the community development scene. And

44

thank you very much for the opportunity.

WALSH: Thank you.

SAWZIN: Thank you for calling me back. I will be very brief, and thank you for reminding us that

maybe we should say what can be said in voice and not in written material. And what Arnie has done for

me is help me find a way in my midlife of finding a voice that I never really thought I would have. For

the past seven years, I’ve known him, first as an educator – he audited my classrooms. One particular

instance stands out. He was called out of the classroom which he was auditing by DOC officials with

some news. He returned to the classroom. He took his position. He calmly joined the conversation, which

was an intro class in psychology. And it was only afterwards that he had reminded us, or told us what the

news was about, which was some very disappointing news about not being granted a process, a very

significant part of this process, with the greatest of ease and calm.

And it’s a genuine voice. It really is a genuine voice. I know that might sound cliché-ish, but you’ve

heard youth people, you’ve heard two young men sit here, and talk about what it means to talk about real

life, not having a father. Arnie King offers that type of voice for the youth of Boston. And I think it’s a

wonderful opportunity to have in front of us. And I really do thank you for allowing us to have it.

WALSH: Thank you.

BERKIN: I’m going to call Remy Cushing and Marva King, please. Remy, why don’t you just start?

CUSHING: Thank you, members of the Board. My name is Remy Cushing, and I appear before you as a

victim’s advocate. I’m a member of Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation, the National

Organization for Victims’ Assistance, Parents of Murdered Children, and the American Society of

Victimologists. And I come to that because on June 1st, 1988, my father was shotgunned to death in front

of my mother in their home in Hampton, New Hampshire. So contemplating what you do in the aftermath

of murders is not an intellectual exercise for me. It’s what I do every day. And I know the pain of the

funeral parlor and the emptiness of the graveyard. And so as I approach this, I’m mindful of Mr.

Labanara and his life being cut short. But I appear before you and urge you to grant – to recommend

commutation of the sentence of Arnie King. And I do so as a victim.

And as someone who knows the loss, I realize that the greatest thing that we could possibly do as a tribute

to someone who’s been murdered is to make sure that no other family has to go through that to give some

kind of meaning for the loss. I think what you have with Arnie is somebody who gets it. He’s incredibly

rare. When I first heard of Arnie, I heard it in the context of my work I do within the criminal justice

world. And I wanted to know everything about his victim. And then I wanted to meet him. And I had

one of those rare conversations. I know hundreds of survivors of murder victims, and I’ve met a few

45

people who’ve killed people, and he was the first time that I ever had a conversation with someone who

got it, who had walked through the pain. Who knew that and tried to figure out what it was like to be

John Labanara and to accept that responsibility.

And I know he holds that very close to him. And I know that when – that you should approach this by

looking at how Arnie’s, the rest of his life could make atonement for what he’s done. And I think that him

being released back into the community where he can play a productive role will be an act of crime

prevention. I believe he is in a very unique position to reach out to people at risk, to serve as an example

of what not to do, and to help prevent further homicides. And I don’t think there is anything more that

would be a greater tribute to John Labanara than to have Arnie King prevent other people from suffering

the same experience as he did, and I would urge you to do that.

WALSH: Thank you.

MARVA KING: Hi, my name is Marva King. I’m Arnold’s sister. And before I begin, I want to offer a

message to Board Member Dorothy Dottridge. I’m sorry to hear about her husband, and I know that she

supported Arnold last time in the decision. So if you could give her our best wishes, I’d appreciate it.

Last time, two years ago, I offered condolences for the first time to the Labanara family. I hadn’t had any

contact with them, so I couldn’t offer condolences before. Although they’re not here today, I want to do

that again today on the record, offer condolences to the Labanara family from the King family. Because

John Labanara walks with us every day. He walks with us because he walks with Arnold. He is with

Arnold every day he takes a step, and I feel that Arnold lives his life now to atone for the life he took. He

lives a life of redemption. He lives a life of honor. In honor of John Labanara.

I can only think back on one of the – and someone brought him up again – Hassan Smith, who is a

correctional officer, and he spoke at the last hearing. And one of the things that stuck in my mind that

Hassan said was that Arnold told him, advised him that he had a second chance at life. He had a second

chance to make some different choices. He had a second chance to turn his life around. And since I only

have two minutes I want to concentrate on that. Because when I look at Arnold, that’s what he gives to

all of us. You asked earlier why are we here? We see when he talks to us, he shows us just by his living

that we have choices to make in our lives that could better our lives.

I was 17 when Arnold was put in prison. I was a high school dropout myself. I was very frustrated and

very angry. What some girls do at 17, when they’re a high school dropout, they get married. And I was

married and lived in a very abusive relationship for ten years. But what my brother did for me was he

showed me that I had a second choice at life. He showed me that. We would talk. He would talk to me.

We would write. I would visit him. He showed me that I had an opportunity to make some changes in my

46

life if I wanted to. It was up to me. And so I did.

I chose to get my high school education. I chose to get my undergraduate degree. I chose to get my

master’s degree. I chose – I just got through completing all my coursework for my Ph.D. I turned my life

around. And what I did after I got – ran away from that abusive marriage, I reached back to other women

who were in similar situations and helped them. I changed my life because of my brother, and that’s what

I wanted you to hear today. I changed my life because of my brother. I wouldn’t be here in front of you

the way I am, educated, polished, prosperous without his help. When I feel that I need to go to the well to

get some strength, I go to Arnold. I go to that well. And I’m sitting here as a representative of the family.

I have three brothers in back of me who could tell you their own stories, how he is their well.

We’ve got members from our community in Portsmouth, New Hampshire that we grew up that are here

today. They could come in here and tell you their story how he is their well. One works for the California

Correctional Facility, who’s here right now, today. These work group members – they’ve been telling

you all day how he influenced them. I don’t know how else to tell you except that he shows us that we

have an opportunity in this life to live a certain way. He’s doing it behind bars. Why shouldn’t we do it

outside in freedom?

I – I’m sorry, I get a little emotional. But I think about a Bible verse that when I read it, I’ve always

thought of Arnold. And it’s in Philippians IV, and its something that transcends all religions, because it

talks about the fact that whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are of

honor, whatsoever things are of good report, think on these things, and think on these virtues, and hold

praise in them. And I think what that Bible verse tells us is that as mankind, we have to think like that.

We have to be just, and honorable, and steadfast, and committed to social change in this country. In the

background of – in this audience, you have all these board members who are of honorable and just

reputations. They all have good report. They’re all here to tell you that Arnold means something to them.

I remember a statement in the dissenting decision last time, something about misrep – END OF SIDE

MARVA KING: – else can we do? It’s supposed to be that you show that he has had extraordinary

transformation and changes in his life. We don’t know what else we can do to show you that. That’s why

we come to confirm that with you. That he has done that.

And I want to close by telling you that if you are so righteous as to let him out of this non – life without

parole sentence, and so righteous to allow him to have a determinate date for parole, then he will show

you that himself. Because every day that we know him, he lives, and walks, and talks, and works in

honor of John Labanara. Thank you.

WALSH: Thank you.

47

BERKIN: Although we still have a roomful of witnesses, we’re going to suspend the presentation of any

more witnesses today, and present some testimony in writing at another time. But otherwise we’re closing

our witness presentation.

WALSH: OK.

BERKIN: Great.

WALSH: Thank you. Mr. King, if you could come back to the table with your attorneys.

BERKIN: (inaudible) testimony (inaudible).

WALSH: Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Berkin. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to the

commutation? I’m seeing none. Thank you.

ELIJAH: Good afternoon. In the interest of time, and I know we’ve gone way beyond time, I’ll try to sum

up rather quickly. There’s a lot that I was going to say that I don’t think is necessary, because I think that

the testimony and the questions and the dialogue with Mr. King have really addressed all of the questions,

all of the issues that needed to be addressed in a hearing, and dealing with the guidelines that Governor

Romney has put forward.

It’s clear from the guidelines that the granting or recommendation of commutation is to be done only in

rare instances. And I think that we’ve all focused on that. And I think that the questions from several of

you looked at that, and asked Mr. King what is it about him that’s extraordinary? What is it about him

that is rare? I’m glad that the guidelines are framed in the semantics of using the word rare, as opposed to

never, because I think that Mr. King does fall in that rare category, and I’m going to share with you why,

briefly.

He was asked what is extraordinary about him, and I think that part of that answer comes in the fact that

before you paraded an extraordinary and diverse group of people who spoke to why they believed and

why they supported this extraordinary man, Mr. King. I and my co-counsel have all been practicing

criminal defense law for well over 20 years a piece. And some might say 30 years. I’m not going to put

age on anybody. But at least 20 years a piece. And we’ve all concluded that of all the people that we’ve

come into contact with in the criminal justice system as clients, Mr. King stands at the top. At the

absolute top of people who have made absolutely unbelievable changes in their lives. And we stand at

risk by saying that, because we have other clients. At some point we maybe sitting at this seat, asking you

to grant pardons or commutations. But we are willing to take that extraordinary step of making a

statement about this extraordinary man. His accomplishments – not only his accomplishments, but what

he has done to give back to his peers in the prison, and to the youth outside, and to everybody that he

48

touches. I personally have been hearing about Mr. King for almost 20 years, long before I relocated from

New York and came to Massachusetts. I never knew that I was going to have the opportunity to meet

him. I never knew that I was going to have the opportunity for him to have such a positive influence on

my own son. My own son, who was challenged in school, and because of his interaction with Mr. King

through the City School program, managed to excel in school and make honor roll. I have to give that

credit to Mr. King. I cannot take that credit for myself. He’s had that kind of influence on many young

people and many of his peers. I have represented numerous people incarcerated here in Massachusetts,

and those who have made positive strides in their lives, every single one of them knows Arnie King and

gives credit to him for helping them to turn their lives around. That in and of itself makes him

extraordinary.

We are guided in making a decision about granting or recommending commutation by the wisdom of

members of the Supreme Court way back in 1927. Back in a case called Biddle v. Perovich, Justice

Holmes wrote that “A pardon,” similar to a commutation, “when granted is the determination of the

ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment

fixed.” Mr. King sits before you presenting to you that extraordinary and rare person for whom

commutation should be granted. Thank you.

WALSH: Thank you. Is there anything else that needs to be said before bringing this hearing to a close?

BERKIN: No.

(overlapping conversations; inaudible)

BERKIN: Arnie, do you have anything?

(overlapping conversations; inaudible)

WALSH: Just as a housekeeping matter, I know it’s human instinct, and you have a strong support group

behind you, but we have to be mindful that we’re visitors and guests, all of us, of the Department of

Corrections. So everyone needs to remain seated while Mr. King is escorted with the correctional

officials. There’s to be no contact with Mr. King as he’s escorted from the room. Your attorneys are free

to go and walk with Mr. King as he’s being escorted out of the room, but we really need in an orderly

fashion for everyone to remain seated, and then we’ll escort everyone else out of the room.

As far as a decision in this matter, once Mrs. Dottridge has had an opportunity to review all of the

proceedings, the Board will meet, and we will prepare written recommendations to the Governor, and

certainly provide them to yourselves, and to the members of the public. And to the members of the public

both who are here in person, those who are here in writing, and those who testified, the Board does take

49

that into consideration. We appreciate your attention and your patience, and we will, again, take that into

consideration when we make our recommendation. With that the hearing is closed. Thank you.

END OF HEARING

50