Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parole Supervision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parole board keeps Christopher Jerome Johnson on supervision, orders no contact with alleged victim
Summary
The Committee on Parole voted not to revoke Christopher Jerome Johnson's supervision after a March arrest for which the district attorney refused charges; the board added a special condition barring him from contacting Jamie Gardner.
Get email alerts on the Parole Supervision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Committee on Parole voted on June 4, 2026 not to revoke the parole of Christopher Jerome Johnson, who pleaded guilty to violations alleging new criminal conduct and unpaid supervision fees.
Johnson, who identified himself to the board as Christopher Jerome Johnson (DOC 570894), said he called 911 on March 26 because he believed his ex‑partner, Jamie Gardner, was suicidal. Gardner, appearing by Zoom, apologized for the time the board spent and said she had been drinking and taking medications; she told the panel Johnson “has never hit me” and that he helped when she was in crisis. The board noted that the 14th Judicial District Attorney's office had reviewed the arrest and refused prosecution.
Chair Hope Rosenbaum said there was no evidence to support a finding of battery and cast the first vote to keep Johnson on supervision. Other members concurred. The board imposed a special condition: Johnson must have no contact — including phone calls — with Jamie Gardner.
The decision keeps Johnson on supervision with an additional no‑contact restriction intended to reduce the risk of future incidents. The board did not order incarceration or other immediate sanctions; Johnson was returned to supervision, subject to the new condition.
The hearing record shows the district attorney refused charges and that the victim provided a statement to the panel; the board's action was a management decision about supervision rather than a criminal conviction. The panel's next procedural step for this case is routine supervision monitoring and enforcement of the no‑contact order.

