Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parole Board Summary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parole board meets across parish jails; several paroles granted and multiple revocations ordered
Summary
The Committee on Parole held hearings Sept. 26 by remote connection at multiple parish jails, voting to revoke several paroles, deny others, continue one hearing and grant parole with conditions in a handful of cases. Below: decisions at a glance and key details from contentious hearings.
Get email alerts on the Parole Board Summary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Committee on Parole met Sept. 26 in a series of remote hearings across parish detention centers and considered revocation and parole requests for multiple people. Acting Chair Pete Freeman presided over panels that reviewed arrest reports, video evidence and witness statements before taking formal votes.
Why it matters: The board’s actions determine who returns to supervision and who remains in custody pending further review. Several decisions hinged on conflicting victim statements, whether charges were nolle prossed by prosecutors and evidence captured on body or facility cameras.
Votes at a glance (selected cases from the hearing): - Jamarcus (Jamar) Davis (Caddo Parish): parole revoked, vote announced by the panel as 2–1. Allegations included an alleged July 2024 dating‑partner battery (Davis pleaded not guilty) and $650 in unpaid supervision fees (pleaded guilty). (Decision announced: SEG 301–303.) - Debaris Taylor (Rapides Parish): parole revoked after the board found multiple failures to report and supervision‑fee arrears ($2,261). (Decision announced: SEG 651–655.) - Grant Walker (Morgan City): parole revoked by a unanimous panel (3–0) after members said accounts and video were conflicting despite the district attorney later declining prosecution on some counts. Walker contended the victim self‑inflicted injuries; board members cited visible injuries on arrival. (Decision announced: SEG 996.) - Gavin/Devin Britton (Orleans): following witness testimony and a closed executive session the panel revoked parole (vote recorded). (Decision announced: SEG 1534–1536.) - Leon Stewart (Ouachita): parole revoked after panel review of video and tape evidence. (Decision announced: SEG 1909–1911.) - Bridgette Delauder (Ouachita): parole granted, 3–0, with conditions including in‑person parenting classes and enrollment in the Monroe Day Reporting Center; the DA, sheriff and sentencing judge had been recorded as opposed. (Decision announced: SEG 2295–2303.) - Rayjon (Ray) Allen (West Baton Rouge): parole granted to a residential reentry plan (the Parole Project) with supervision and program requirements after family, employer and reentry‑program support were presented. (Decision announced: SEG 3428–3434.) - Anthony Russell (St. Charles Parish): parole denied after the board cited strong victim and prosecutorial opposition. (Decision announced: SEG 3700–3701.) - Edward (Ever) Hernandez (Franklin Parish): parole denied amid prior DWI history, an ICE detainer and questions about the viability of his employment plan. (Decision announced: SEG 4040–4044.)
Key examples from the record: - On Walker’s case, the panel heard that the district attorney had entered nolle prosequi on a battery count; Walker told the board the victim "the wounds were self inflicted." Board members nonetheless cited injuries observed on arrival when explaining their votes (transcript excerpts summarized at SEG 736–749; vote: SEG 992–996). - For Rayjon Allen, the panel heard detailed accounts of programming and employer support; Allen acknowledged having discharged a firearm but said he did not aim at a person and told the board, "I shot in the air." The board favored supervised release into the Parole Project and placement in a residential reentry program (discussion and vote: SEG 2580–2859, SEG 3418–3429).
What happens next: Many grants were issued with conditions such as enrollment in day‑reporting centers, parenting or anger‑management classes, and no‑contact orders. Several denials and revocations will keep individuals in custody; one hearing (Vernon Orange) was continued to a later date to allow witnesses and counsel to appear (SEG 1108–1113).
The board’s decisions were recorded on the minutes and will be followed by formal orders listing conditions and any required reporting by parole staff.

