$324,000: Schofield prosecutor Jerry Hill has profited substantially from his former office since his 2016 retirement
But it's still unclear if Hill is considered an employee of the 10th Circuit State's Attorney's Office -- or who is paying for his legal defense against my Florida Bar complaint.
Here, in one condensed paragraph, is a summary of the multi-decade injustice long-time former 10th Circuit State’s Attorney Jerry Hill is most responsible for perpetrating on Leo Schofield.
A convicted murderer named Jeremy Scott has confessed multiple times in escalating detail to killing Leo Schofield’s 18-year-old wife Michelle in 1987. He left a palm print on her car. No jury has ever heard that evidence against Scott because Jerry Hill, his successor Brian Haas, and the Florida judicial system refuse to allow it. No physical or eyewitness evidence has ever tied Leo Schofield to his wife’s killing. The last living juror from his 1989 trial says she didn’t really think he did it at time, but went along with the other jurors. Michelle Schofield’s brother says he has no confidence in the conviction and wants Leo released. State Senator Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, who chairs the Senate’s criminal justice committee, said publicly to parole commissioners in May 2023: “Everything that I’ve seen about this case turns my stomach. I don’t know why Leo Schofield wasn’t released years ago when he went before this board.”
Since Jerry Hill’s retirement from elected office in 2016, the longtime former 10th Circuit State’s Attorney has been paid at least $324,000 by taxpayers for “certain legal services” provided to the office currently held by his successor, Brian Haas.
Here is how Chief Assistant State Attorney and spokesman Jacob Orr described Hill’s ongoing role with the 10th SAO. Orr was responding to a public records request I made some time ago.
In response to your request for an explanation of the association that Jerry Hill has with the State Attorney’s Office, I offer the following.
The State Attorney’s Office pays Jerry Hill for certain legal services. Mr. Hill was paid approximately $50,000 annually from 2017 through 2020. His was paid approximately $58,000 in 2021 and $66,700 in 2022. Mr. Hill is responsible for the coordination of all cases that go before the Florida Commission on Offender Review. Mr. Hill’s duties include cases being considered by the Commission for parole, parole revocation, medical release, clemency, and the restoration of civil rights.
Hill’s false statements on behalf of the 10th SAO in Leo Schofield’s 2020 hearing before the Florida Commission on Offender Review comprise the most serious part of the Florida Bar complaint I filed recently against him. The other part is Hill’s childish and profane response to a blunt question I politely asked him in March 2023 about that 2020 hearing. Full background here:
And here:
What about 2023 and the most recent Schofield hearing?
I decided to ask about Hill’s financial/employment relationship to the 10th SAO after questions arose about who is paying Hill’s legal bills for his defense against my complaint. Orr suggested that Hill is entitled to representation by the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association (FPAA); but Hill, as a private lawyer, seems ineligible for membership in the FPAA. The FPAA refuses to comment. Full background here.
Jacob Orr’s written answer to my records request (I will publish it at the end of this article) is much longer than the paragraph I quoted above; but it did not provide any additional detail on Hill’s compensation. Thus, I can’t hazard a guess about his hourly rate or total number of hours worked for Haas’ office since 2016.
In fairness, I did not ask for itemization. But the overall amount surprised me. It’s significantly larger than I expected. And there were other questions Orr did not answer, despite the prodigious length of his note.
The details Orr did provide further tweaked my curiosity, particularly as it relates to his 2023 compensation and the May 2023 parole hearing for Leo Schofield. Jerry Hill did not attend that 2023 hearing and showed no outward sign of co-ordinating the SAO’s response to it. And Orr did not provide Hill’s total compensation number for 2023.
So I sent a follow-up request to Orr a few days ago, for which I haven’t yet received an answer.
I just want to clarify a few things so I don't misstate them.
1. Does the SAO consider Jerry Hill a staff employee, an independent contractor, or a private lawyer representing a client? Or is there some other way of precisely describing the relationship?
2. What has the SAO paid Jerry Hill in 2023? I'm specifically interested in what he has been paid since the March 7, 2023 "F - You" incident at the Polk Commission Chambers. Did Jerry Hill co-ordinate the May 3 parole hearing for Leo Schofield? He did not appear at the hearing and it seems like Victoria Avalon co-ordinated and carried out preparation for the hearing while you spoke for the SAO. Did Jerry have a paid role?
3. What statistics are you using when you refer to crime being at a 50-year-low in a different part of your note? As I'm sure you know, 2020 is the last year Florida and Polk County reported uniform crime stats to the FBI. In that year, Polk County saw a massive, 70 percent murder rate spike, the largest of any large county in the state. I wrote about that here if you'd like to learn more.
Thanks much for any answers you can provide.
If Hill was not paid to co-ordinate the May 3 Schofield hearing, it suggests a change in policy for the SAO. It also suggests that the attention paid to both Hill’s 2020 parole hearing performance and his 2023 “F-you” outburst have had consequences for how the SAO is handling Schofield’s case for parole.
To ask bluntly: has Jerry Hill’s behavior cost him money from the 10th SAO and taxpayers? And if so, what does that say about the legitimacy of my complaint — and more importantly — the case for the release and exoneration of Leo Schofield?
More to come.
Here is my first public records request to the SAO about Jerry Hill’s payments:
Please see the attached affidavit that Jerry Hill signed in which he referred to Brian Haas as his "supervisor."
I want to know the answer to this question: Is Jerry Hill an employee of the 10th SAO? Has he ever been an employee since his retirement as State's Attorney?
My records request is for:
Any post-retirement contract for services or employment agreement between Jerry Hill and the SAO.
Payment records since he retired as state attorney.
If it's easier, I will accept an explanation of the "association" (with a copy of any employment agreement) and a total figure the SAO has paid Jerry since he retired as state's attorney.
Thanks.
Here is Orr’s full answer:
In response to your request for an explanation of the association that Jerry Hill has with the State Attorney’s Office , I offer the following.
The State Attorney’s Office pays Jerry Hill for certain legal services. Mr. Hill was paid approximately $50,000 annually from 2017 through 2020. His was paid approximately $58,000 in 2021 and $66,700 in 2022. Mr. Hill is responsible for the coordination of all cases that go before the Florida Commission on Offender Review. Mr. Hill’s duties include cases being considered by the Commission for parole, parole revocation, medical release, clemency, and the restoration of civil rights.
For many years, individuals that were convicted and sentenced to prison were eligible for parole. As reoffenders caused the crime rate to spike, the Florida Legislature eliminated parole in the early 1990s. Consequently, we are experiencing a 50 year low in our crime rate. However, there are many defendants in prison that committed crimes in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s that remain eligible for parole. Whether the inmate is released or not is decided by the Florida Commission on Offender Review. The Commission holds public hearings where those in favor and opposed to parole, in each case, present arguments. Mr. Hill is responsible for familiarizing himself with the facts of the case, obtaining input from the victim’s families and law enforcement, consulting with the administration of the State Attorney’s Office, and presenting the State’s argument to the Commission. The hearings are most often held in Tallahassee; but, can be held throughout the State.
The vast majority of inmates that remain incarcerated and are eligible for parole consideration have been convicted of murder, capital sexual battery, or armed robbery. Mr. Hill has proven to be very effective in limiting the release of violent offenders back into our community. Below is a brief summary of just a few of the cases he has argued before the Commission.
Riley Burchfield lived in Fort Meade, Florida. He was estranged from his wife who had a 3 year old child from a previous relationship. Burchfield shot the 3 year old boy with a .357 caliber Magnum handgun while the child was asleep. He was sentenced to life in prison. In an attempt to gain parole, Burchfield communicated to the Commission that the shooting was not in cold blood. However, Mr. Hill researched the 1973 case and was able to point out to the Commission that Burchfield, in fact, told police that he killed the child because he was mad at the mother. The Commission agreed with Mr. Hill, and declined to parole Burchfield.
Rexford Tweed was convicted of sexually battering a child under that was under the age of 12, in 1989; he was sentenced to life in prison. Tweed would not be eligible for release if he committed his crime under current law; however, he is eligible for parole based on 1989 laws. After hearing Mr. Hill’s arguments in opposition to release, the Commission set his presumptive release date in 2090.
In 1990, Joseph Lee sexually battered a child that was under the age of 12. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Based on the laws at the time, Lee is eligible for parole. After hearing from Mr. Hill, the Commission has set Lee’s presumptive release date in 2101.
Melvin Borders was convicted of killing an innocent man that interrupted Borders’ burglary of a vehicle; he was sentenced to life in prison, but was parole eligible earlier this year. Mr. Hill argued against his release and the Commission set Borders’ new presumptive release date in 2039.
In 1987, Curtis Smith, armed with a firearm, entered an apartment occupied by a young couple. Smith grabbed the arm of the young lady and attempted to pull her out of the apartment. The man intervened and was shot to death. He was sentenced to life in prison. Smith was seeking a referral to a program to prepare him for release. Mr. Hill argued that Smith should not be considered for such a program. The Commission denied Smith’s request.
Clifford Lyons shot an unarmed man in the chest and was sentenced to life in prison. If he committed the same crime today, he would not be eligible for parole. However, based on when this crime occurred, he is eligible and has been recommended for parole. Mr. Hill has argued against his parole multiple times. To date, Lyons has been denied parole.
Ellize Shackelford shot and killed a man after a dispute regarding a bicycle race. Shackelford received a life sentence; however, he has previously been paroled twice and violated each time. Mr. Hill opposed his request to be released from prison, again. Shackelford remains in prison.
Danny Criswell is serving a life sentence for shooting his wife with a shotgun at close range. She was unarmed and had left him months earlier. There was a recommendation that Criswell be placed in a program to prepare for his eventual parole; Mr. Hill opposed that recommendation. The Commission declined to authorize parole.
Raymond Eldridge entered the victim’s home, tied up the victim, and stole firearms and jewelry before shooting and killing the victim. Mr. Hill appeared before the Commission on behalf of the State and Eldridge’s presumed release date was extended to 2118.
There are times where the State Attorney’s Office takes a different approach. Just recently, Mr. Hill consulted with the current administration of the State Attorney’s Office regarding Irvin Landry. Landry is serving a life sentence for a murder that occurred in 1992. At the time of the murder, Landry was only 17 years old. After researching the case and Landry’s performance in prison, Mr. Hill will be deferring to the judgement of the Commission regarding Landry’s release.
The list of cases could go on and on. Mr. Hill is coordinating hundreds, if not thousands, of cases that are eligible for action by the Florida Commission on Offender Review, including cases that are not being reviewed for parole.
The Florida Commission on Offender Review maintains a staff of investigators that review each request for clemency and/or requests to restore the civil rights of offenders. As part of the review, those investigators request the position of the State Attorney’s Office. Mr. Hill is involved with the review and analysis of those cases and consults with the current State Attorney regarding whether or not to oppose the application. The position of the State Attorney’s Office is taken into consideration by the Commission when deciding whether to recommend any further action.
Florida law allows for conditional medical release of inmates that are determined to be permanently incapacitated or terminally ill. The authority to grant such a release lies with the Florida Commission on Offender Review. When an inmate applies for such a release, Mr. Hill analyzes the situation and makes recommendations to the Commission on behalf of the State Attorney’s Office.
Since being elected, State Attorney Brian Haas has maintained this office’s commitment to continue to serve victims in cases that are being heard by the Florida Commission on Offender Review. This commitment requires an experienced attorney that can understand complex cases, interface with the victim’s families, and effectively argue before the Commission. A competent attorney with the requisite experience would demand a sizeable salary and benefits; however, Mr. Hill is paid less than any attorney working at the State Attorney’s Office that handles felony cases. Further, as you know from your time on the School Board, most employees cost the State more than their pay because the State has to cover their benefits. Mr. Hill is not paid any healthcare or retirement benefits. This arrangement with Mr. Hill reduces the financial burden on taxpayers while providing effective representation before the Commission.
Should this explanation not satisfy your inquiry, please let me know and our public records custodian will follow up with you regarding obtaining specific payment records.