Diane Piagentini, widow of slain police officer Joseph Piagentini, holds a photo of her husband from their wedding day in 1966, after a parole hearing in New York in 2004. Photo: Diane Bondareff/AP

A request to reconsider the release on parole supervision of Herman Bell, who was convicted in the murder of two police officers nearly five decades ago, was rejected Thursday by a state appellate court in Albany. 

The Appellate Division, Third Department wrote in the ruling that the widow of one of the murdered officers did not have standing to challenge the Parole Board's decision.

"As the inmate/parolee and the board are the only parties to a parole determination, and the board cannot challenge its own determination, the inmate/parolee is the only person with standing to challenge the substantive determination regarding parole," the court wrote.

Bell was released from state prison last year after serving more than four decades for the murders of officers Joseph Piagentini and Waverly Jones in 1971. He was convicted on those charges in 1975. 

Since 2004, Bell had appeared before the Parole Board on seven occasions and was rejected each time.

Anticipating another request from Bell, Diane Piagentini submitted a victim impact statement to the Parole Board detailing the emotional impact and post-traumatic stress she had suffered after the murder of her husband. 

She was represented before the Third Department by Mitchell Garber, a partner at Worth, Longworth & London in Manhattan. Garber did not immediately return a call for comment.

After Bell was released on parole last year, Piagentini filed a challenge to the Parole Board's decision, arguing that her statement was largely ignored by the panel before granting his request. Members of the board had read her statement, according to the decision, but Piagentini argued that it should have been given more weight in the proceeding.

Associate Justice Robert Mulvey of the Third Department wrote in the court's decision that, while Piagentini had the right to submit her statement to the board, she didn't have standing to control or challenge its decision.

"Although crime victims are granted certain rights in relation to criminal actions and parole proceedings, those rights are limited and do not allow victims to control the criminal process or collateral proceedings," Mulvey wrote in the court's opinion.

Mulvey also wrote in the decision that there is currently no mechanism for a decision by the Parole Board to be challenged by anyone other than the person whose parole has been denied. The only two parties to a parole hearing are the inmate and the Parole Board, which can't challenge its own determination. 

Thinking more broadly, Piagentini, as a designee for a crime victim, would not be a party to a criminal action, and therefore should also not be considered a party during parole proceedings, Mulvey wrote.

Instead, oversight of the Parole Board rests with the governor and the State Senate, who respectively appoint and confirm members of the panel, Mulvey wrote.

"Although there may not be any mechanism to challenge or audit the board in relation to each parole decision, the board's functioning as a whole is balanced by, and will be tempered by, the power of the governor to appoint and the Senate to confirm board members," Mulvey wrote.

Bell was represented before the Third Department by Robert J. Boyle, an attorney in New York City. Boyle said when reached by phone that he was pleased with the court's decision.

Associate Justice John Egan Jr. wrote in an opinion dissenting from the majority that he would have remitted the matter back to the Parole Board to reevaluate Bell's release.

Egan argued that, while Piagentini could not challenge the Parole Board's ultimate decision, she did have standing to dispute whether her victim impact statement was actually considered by the panel in its decision. 

The Parole Board, according to Egan, said that its decision was partly influenced by a statement from a family member of one of the murdered officers who favored granting parole to Bell. The panel, meanwhile, did not mention Piagentini's statement as noteworthy. Egan wrote that the board should have addressed both positions.

"Although the board is not required to decide a case in accord with any particular victim's impact statement, it obviously found this factor to be significant and should have addressed both viewpoints as expressed in the respective victim impact statements provided by the immediate family victims," Egan wrote.

Mulvey, in the majority opinion, had argued that Piagentini essentially abandoned her argument that the board didn't consider her statement after the opposite was revealed during proceedings before the trial court.

He was joined on the majority opinion by Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry and Associate Justice Stan Pritzker. Associate Justice Michael Lynch concurred with the majority in a separate opinion. Egan was the lone dissent. 

The Parole Board was represented by the state Attorney General's Office. A representative for the panel said they're reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.

Bell's parole largely ignited criticism from Republicans in the state Legislature, who argued earlier this year that stricter requirements should be set for inmates seeking parole, particularly those convicted of violent crimes.

READ MORE:

Greenberg Says NY State Bar Will Activate Task Forces to Reach Out to Lawmakers

NY State Bar Association to Focus on Why Parolees End Up Back Behind Bars

NY Legislature Democrats Push Parole Reform Bills in Bid to Reduce Incarceration