Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parole Decision Conditions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Parole retained for Lawrence Miller; board imposes reprimand, anger-management and mental-health follow-up

5481204 · May 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Committee on Parole did not revoke Lawrence Millers parole at Jefferson Parish Correctional Center; board members decided not to revoke and recommended anger-management classes and mental-health treatment as conditions.

The Committee on Parole held a revocation hearing for Lawrence Miller Jr. at Jefferson Parish Correctional Center on Oct. 12, 2025, and decided not to revoke his parole. The board instead issued a reprimand and ordered behavioral interventions.

Lawrence Miller pleaded not guilty with a statement to a domestic-abuse-related arrest that the Jefferson Parish District Attorney later dismissed; he pleaded guilty with a statement to being behind $432 in supervision fees. "My vote is to do not revoke with conditions, and I think you good for you to get some anger management classes," Mr. Jones said when casting his vote not to revoke. Both Mr. Tillis and Miss Stapleton agreed with that disposition.

Why it matters: The board separated the criminal disposition (dismissal of the domestic-abuse charge) from parole compliance. Although Miller acknowledged arrears and an incident that led to arrest, the panel opted for supervision with mandated treatment rather than revocation.

Key details: Miller told the board he had recently started work at LSU Medical School and had begun mental-health therapy before the hearing. The panel noted his willingness to continue treatment and recommended anger-management classes; one board member said mental-health care would be preferable if available at Millers placement. The board recorded a reprimand and conditions rather than revocation.

Discussion versus action: The hearing included victim and employer statements in Millers favor (discussion). The formal action was a majority decision not to revoke, with conditions assigned (decision and direction to supervise compliance).

Ending: The board closed the hearing without revoking parole and added treatment and class attendance as conditions; the transcript does not specify monitoring dates or reporting deadlines on the record.