Luke Mitchell Claims Parole Rejection Was Unlawful in Jodi Jones Case

Luke Mitchell thinks the parole board cared more about a victim’s feelings. It seemed they cared less about his freedom fight. He went to court after the board kept him in prison. He claims their decision was unlawful.

Mitchell says the April 2024 hearing was unfair. He says they didn’t look at all the evidence. He wants a judge to overturn the board’s decision and schedule another parole board review.

His lawyers shared reasons for his appeal in court. He wanted to stop the hearing briefly because they had a report about him, but he only saw a partial version. Mitchell needed time to discuss it with his lawyer and was worried about the report’s contents.

The board wouldn’t delay, deciding to ignore the report. Mitchell spoke to his lawyer by phone. He felt the board cared more about a victim’s feelings when making their decision.

Mitchell was 14 when he murdered Jodi Jones in woods near her home back in 2003. He received a life sentence with a 20-year minimum. He was denied parole last April.

Jodi and Mitchell dated for four months. A judge called the murder “truly evil.” Jodi vanished June 30th, and Mitchell said his dog found her body.

Her hands were tied, and her throat had been cut. She was slashed repeatedly. Police investigated for ten months before accusing Mitchell, who was convicted in 2005 when he was only 16.

He lost four appeals. Some online supporters believe he is innocent, which began after a 2021 TV show. One of Jodi’s relatives feared his release, calling him a danger to women.

Mitchell went to jail in February 2005 and got a parole chance last April. The time before his trial counted. His lawyer argued the board failed to consider all evidence and that he should have seen the full report.

The lawyer said 20 minutes wasn’t enough time. Mitchell felt the board predetermined his fate. He now seeks to overturn the board’s decision from last April.

The parole board’s lawyer said they acted legally. The report didn’t affect their decision because they ignored it entirely. Other proof led them to deny parole.

Mitchell thinks the report’s author is biased. He plans to report the doctor, believing the doctor failed professionally. The parole board’s lawyer asked the court to reject Mitchell’s request.

The board must hold a new hearing before April and review all release evidence. The judge thanked the lawyers and stated that she will write her decision later.