A fraying, delusional defense of the indefensible in the Schofield case
A snippy State's Attorney's email grudgingly notes Jerry Hill does not document his work time and says vague "personal safety" concerns caused Hill to miss Leo Schofield's May parole hearing.
It’s never easy or pleasant to defend the indefensible.
So I can sympathize a bit with Chief Assistant State’s Attorney Jacob Orr’s petulance in finally responding to my latest public records request. I was asking for some detail about longtime former State’s Attorney Jerry Hill’s lucrative, post-retirement work arrangement with the 10th SAO, which has paid Hill roughly $376,000 since he left office in 2016.
I got a very long and very grumpy answer.
You’d probably be grumpy, too
And that’s understandable.
If you had to publicly explain over and over again why it’s good and just that no Polk County jury has ever heard — or should ever hear — convicted murderer Jeremy Scott’s multiple detailed confessions to killing Leo Schofield’s wife Michelle in 1987; if you had to explain why no jury should ever see the clear physical evidence against Jeremy Scott, you’d be probably be grumpy, too.
If the Republican chair of the Florida Senate’s criminal justice committee had publicly lambasted your office’s 35-year case against Leo Schofield; if he declared that your case places the entire Florida legal system in “doubt”; if he provided a strong hint that he’s coming for your case, politically, you’d probably be grumpy, too.
Moreover, as Jacob Orr and Jerry Hill both know quite well, Orr’s official petulance is one of the most important reasons my Florida Bar complaint against Jerry Hill has been so successful. That complaint has now entered its most serious period of active investigation, a stage that only 1/3 or fewer of complaints reach. See here.
It was Jacob Orr himself who pointed me to the entire record of Jerry Hill’s 2020 Schofield-focused performance before the Florida Commission on Offender Review (FCOR). Previously, I had only listened to the less damaging (to Hill) account in the Bone Valley podcast about the entire Schofield case.
The full record of that 2020 appearance shows that Jerry Hill claimed “the defendant” in Leo Schofield’s case, who is Leo Schofield, confessed to the crime. That is blatantly false. Hill and his lawyers still officially refuse to correct that false statement in clear violation of Florida Bar rules. See here.
I wouldn’t have heard that part of Hill’s statement without Orr’s prodding, nor made it the centerpiece of my complaint. I thank him. But he doesn’t seem in the mood to say “you’re welcome.”
So again, perhaps we should put ourselves Orr’s shoes.
If you had made matters far worse and more perilous for the formerly powerful state’s attorney you’re trying to defend — through your own petulance and irrational hatred of a podcast — you’d probably be grumpy today, too.
“… decided to send a lesser known individual”
I’m going to publish and annotate Orr’s full email to me in a moment. But here are the key factual points buried within it.
The State’s Attorney’s Office does not require Jerry Hill to submit any documentation of hours worked or services provided for the $5,833 he receives each month to coordinate Polk cases with business before the Florida Commission on Offender Review (FCOR). What follows is the closest thing to documentation that Orr provided — a letter sent from the SAO to the FCOR about a request for pardon. Orr sent about 10 of these types of letters from 2023 as samples of Hill’s work product, along with lists of FCOR cases. Orr claims Hill is “coordinating hundreds” of these cases.
The SAO claims to have been afraid for Jerry Hill’s safety if he attended the May 2023 parole hearing for Leo Schofield. That’s why Hill, who is literally paid to coordinate FCOR cases for the 10th Circuit, missed the highest profile such hearing in the history of the agency. Here is Orr’s explanation from his email:
First, the upcoming parole hearing seemed to be becoming more about Mr. Hill than the horrific act committed by Schofield. Second, this office became concerned for the personal safety and well-being of Mr. Hill at the hearing. In response, the Office of the State Attorney decided to send a lesser known individual, from this agency’s administration, to the May 3rd hearings.
It’s not clear to me who Orr and State’s Attorney Brian Haas thought might harm Hill — or upset Hill’s fragile, snowflakey feelings. Leo Schofield’s family? Podcasters Gilbert King and Kelsey Decker? Scott Cupp, the politically conservative former prosecutor and judge now dedicating himself to exonerating Schofield? Former prosecutor Sen. Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, chair of the Senate’s criminal justice committee, who said this at that hearing:
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. You have the opportunity to release him immediately. He wasn’t released last time because he wasn’t remorseful. You cannot be remorseful for something you did not do.
“You seem concerned …”
I’m about to reprint the entirety of Orr’s email to me. It’s pretty long; and it includes a few blatantly false statements, which I’ll document with bolded annotations.
I’ve come to expect this general lack of basic integrity from 10th SAO, which is a fraying, fearful, politics-dominated institution, whose leadership seems to have lost all sight of its actual civic function and purpose. It’s not just Schofield.
Keep in mind as you read Orr’s email that I only wanted to know 1) If Jerry Hill itemizes his time or submits any documentation of services performed. 2) Why did Hill not attend the most important and high profile parole hearing in the history of the Circuit, when doing so is literally part of his job description?
Orr responded by answering a lot of questions I didn’t ask. I officially have no opinion on whether Jerry Hill provides value for money, overall, in his FCOR co-ordination role for the 10th Circuit. He certainly has not provided value in the Schofield case, however. And I am glad 10th Circuit voters now know about it.
Anyway, here’s what I got back from Orr, on behalf of the SAO, after several weeks of waiting:
As I have previously told you, Mr. Hill is coordinating hundreds of cases that are eligible for action by the Florida Commission on Offender Review. Further, you have been provided payment records related to this his service in this capacity. You seem concerned that a retired employee has returned to work for the agency from which he retired; however, this is a common practice. Retirees are and have been part of the workforce within all levels of government. Retirees have returned to work as employees of Polk County, City of Lakeland, City of Bartow, City of Winter Haven, Polk County Sheriff’s Office, Polk County School Board, the Office of the Public Defender, and the Office of the State Attorney. Even retired judges are re-hired as Senior Judges after retirement. These employees have become a necessity. Our agency has faced staffing shortages for years and we have been able to fill vacancies throughout the office with individuals that have previously retired. I am sure that during your time on the School Board, you became aware of the frequency of this practice.
It appears that your request is primarily concerned with May, 2023. During May, this office responded to 5 requests for input regarding applications for clemency; I have previously explained to you Mr. Hill’s role in those responses, but do so again below. I have attached a few sample responses, for reference. In May and many months before, Mr. Hill devoted a significant amount of time to the cases on the May 3rd calendar, including State v. Schofield. This preparation included reviewing thousands of pages within the case files, communicating with any surviving family members of the victims, and consulting with this agency’s administration. The Schofield case received a great deal of attention due to a podcast that unfairly vilified Mr. Hill. The podcast intentionally edited Mr. Hill’s comments at a prior parole hearing in a misleading way. While the actual transcript proved that Mr. Hill never misled anyone, various media sources and online bloggers publicized the false and edited version.
***
[From Billy — The part I put in italics above is just Pinocchio-level wishcasting. The unedited, “actual transcript” is literally the first exhibit of my Florida Bar complaint, which is very much alive.
Here’s the receipt on that:
The Bone Valley podcasters can defend themselves. But having to edit Jerry Hill’s 9-minute blizzard of malicious and rambling bullshit in the 2020 hearing would be a challenge for anyone trying to tell a story with audio. And leaving out the most damning parts seems a curious way to unfairly vilify someone. On the contrary, Bone Valley seems to have gone easy on Jerry. The full, unedited transcript is much worse for him.
Moreover, Orr and company would do well to drop their fixation on Bone Valley and focus on the Schofield case itself. The podcast is just the vehicle for critical attention that this case could never have stood up to, at least since the discovery of the evidence against Jeremy Scott. Scott Cupp and Jonathan Martin aren’t focused on the podcast; they’re focused on the case. This is not a battle between podcasters and prosecutors; it’s a clear, fixable perversion of justice that everyone should want to get right, especially prosecutors.]
*** BACK TO ORR
This false online narrative of a grand conspiracy against Schofield being orchestrated by Mr. Hill caused concern in two areas. First, the upcoming parole hearing seemed to be becoming more about Mr. Hill than the horrific act committed by Schofield. Second, this office became concerned for the personal safety and well-being of Mr. Hill at the hearing. In response, the Office of the State Attorney decided to send a lesser known individual, from this agency’s administration, to the May 3rd hearings.
The Florida Commission on Offender Review does periodically publish a detailed list of cases to be heard at upcoming hearings. This is available online and I have attached the latest ones as a reference. If this response does not satisfy your inquiry, please notify our records custodian what records you are requesting.
To assist you in “determining what tax payers are paying for,” allow me, again, to provide you with a summary of the important work being done by Mr. Hill.
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.
***
[From Billy — '‘50 year low in our crime rate” is a false talking point for the Ron DeSantis presidential campaign that FDLE officials objected to repeatedly. See article here. Key excerpt:
“Despite those warnings, DeSantis continued to promote the numbers on the campaign trail, three former officials with Florida’s Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) familiar with the matter told NBC News.
“The ethics of what we were reporting, we knew the numbers were bad,” a former FDLE employee told NBC News. “We foot-stomped it to leadership over and over again; they did not care. They did not care.”
Also, the only truly verifiable crime stats are homicide, which are far from 50-year lows in Polk County. Florida hasn’t even submitted overall crime data to the FBI since 2020, when Polk County had the biggest spike in murder rate of any large Florida county. I’ve asked Orr about this before; and he ignored the question.]
*** BACK TO ORR
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 deferred 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.
I ask you: does all that content sound like a public official confident in the morality and accuracy of what he’s defending, or in his power to make it stick forever?
I don’t think it’s going to get better. Forces seem to be at work that pose much greater threat to “law and order” prosectors gone awry than the two greedy podcasters and a dirty local lib the SAO imagines as its antagonists in this matter.
So while I can sympathize with the plight of Orr and Haas, who inherited this slowly building disaster for the 10th Circuit from Jerry Hill, Victoria Avalon, John Aguero, Keith Spoto and Kevin Abdoney, I think I would pay a little more attention to what’s happening today, on multiple fronts, if I were them.
And I’d be a little more polite and professional in my answers.