EUGENE BERTA VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD(NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD), A-2306-15T1

Background

Eugene Berta was convicted of murder and weapons charges after a 1983 trial and sentenced to life with 30 years parole ineligibility; he became parole-eligible in September 2014.
A two-member Parole Board panel denied parole (March 26, 2015), citing institutional infractions, lack of insight, denial/minimization of responsibility, and attaching a confidential psychological report.
A three-member panel later imposed a 120-month future eligibility term (FET) outside the presumptive guideline, again relying on the panel findings and confidential material; the full Board affirmed on final agency review.
Berta appealed, arguing the Board ignored or excluded favorable evidence (including DOC psychological evaluations and volunteer recommendations), improperly focused on his assertion of innocence, failed to assess suitability for community transitional housing, and that the FET was arbitrary.
The Appellate Division reviewed the record (including confidential appendices under protective order), applied the deferential standard for administrative review, and affirmed the Board’s denial of parole and 120-month FET.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board arbitrarily denied parole by ignoring/discounting mitigating evidence	Berta: Board summarily dismissed strong evidence of low recidivism risk and favorable institutional record	Board: Considered mitigating factors but reasonably weighed them against aggravating evidence including manipulative personality and inconsistent statements	Court: Affirmed — Board considered factors and its predictive, subjective appraisal was supported by substantial credible evidence
Whether the Board improperly excluded DOC psychological evaluations and volunteer recommendations	Berta: Board failed to obtain/review required DOC evaluations and suppressed volunteer recommendations, denying fair consideration	Board: Confidential psychological material and addenda were part of the record and considered; no suppression warranting remand	Court: Affirmed — confidential evaluations were reviewed and the record supported decision
Whether asserting innocence created a "catch-22" that penalizes refusal to admit guilt	Berta: Denying parole because he denied guilt penalizes his assertion of innocence	Board: Statements reflecting denial, shifting blame, and inconsistent explanations were relevant to assessing risk/insight	Court: Affirmed — Board may consider inmate statements about crime and denial as bearing on likelihood of reoffense
Whether imposition of a 120-month FET outside guideline was arbitrary	Berta: FET excessive given mitigating factors and institutional record	Board: Cited lack of satisfactory progress, persistent manipulative pathology, and insufficient problem resolution under N.J.A.C. standards	Court: Affirmed — Board provided written reasons; FET was within discretion and supported by record

Key Cases Cited

In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (scope of appellate review of agency decisions)
Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113 (parole presumption and burdens; individualized discretionary appraisal)
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (parole boards focus on what an inmate may become)
N.J. State Parole Bd. v. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. 534 (standard for setting aside parole decisions)
McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544 (Board must focus on likelihood of recidivism and may set lengthy FETs)
Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (administrative decisions set aside only if arbitrary or unsupported)