NYC murder accomplice with 'extraordinary' record denied parole

By Daniel Wiessner ALBANY N.Y. (Reuters) - An accomplice in the fatal shooting of a New York City police officer on Thursday lost his latest bid for parole, despite what a state appeals court said was an "extraordinary" 30-year prison record and broad support from corrections officials. The court said that since Samuel Hamilton's 1983 incarceration, he had earned bachelor's and master's degrees, acted as a teacher and mentor to dozens of fellow inmates, and coordinated a number of prison programs. In support of his parole, Hamilton, 52, received letters from high-ranking corrections officials, prison guards, hundreds of inmates and even the assistant district attorney who prosecuted him. The supervisor of a state prison wrote that "he would be fine having (Hamilton) and his family as his neighbors," the court said. Hamilton was sentenced to 18 years to life for the 1982 crime, in which off-duty officer James Carragher was shot during a robbery in Brooklyn. Thursday's decision by the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, was the seventh time that Hamilton had been denied parole, despite the court saying it was "persuaded that petitioner's achievements during his incarceration have been extraordinary." In a 3-2 decision, the panel of judges agreed with the state parole board that the nature of his crime required that he remain incarcerated. "The board...(determined) that release would be incompatible with the welfare of society and so deprecate the seriousness of the crime as to undermine respect for the law," Justice Christine Clark wrote for the majority. Hamilton's lawyer, Christopher Filburn, said he was disappointed especially after all five judges "recognized the extraordinary accomplishments" of the inmate. He said there was no decision yet on whether to appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. A spokesman for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision declined to comment. Presiding Justice Karen Peters in dissent criticized the majority for rubber-stamping the board's decision despite Hamilton's apparent rehabilitation. "The role of the courts is to make some measure of substantive evaluation to assure that justice is served," Peters wrote. The case is the Matter of Samuel Hamilton v. New York State Division of Parole, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, No. 518301. (Reporting by Daniel Wiessner; Editing by Ted Botha and Grant McCool)