John Pilati

According to information provided by the Alabama Attorney General’s office, the State Pardons and Paroles Board decided Feb. 22 to deny pardon application for convicted former Franklin County District Attorney John Frederick Pilati.

The denial extends back to previous partial pardons granted in 2012 and 2015 and voids those pardons.

“The recent denial by the Board was an official vote by the current Board to not grant the pardon applicant’s request for a pardon,” said Alabama Board of Pardons and Parole Assistant Executive Director Darrell Morgan. “The Board has continued to process the case until the proper jurisdictional basis to act on Pilati’s pardon application was established.”

According to Morgan, “the 2012 and 2015 pardons were not legally effective actions of the Board because they were both void by law – one through the failure of a specified contingency on the pardon to happen to make it effective and one because of a lack of jurisdiction to issue the pardon.”

With the denial of the application for pardon, the original court order requiring Pilati to register as a sex offender is still in effect, and he must be placed back on the sex offender registry.

Pilati was convicted in federal court and sentenced in 2008 to 42 months in prison for five civil rights offenses related to sexual assaults on young men who ranged in age from 16-20.

It was in December 2015 that a partial pardon led to Pilati’s removal from the sex offender registry in early 2016. As previously reported by the Franklin County Times in March 2016, Pilati brought documentation to the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office in early 2016 notifying them that he had been pardoned through the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency sent a letter, dated Jan. 5, 2016, confirming this information, stating, “The Agency has determined that the (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act) no longer applies to John Pilati. Mr. Pilati was convicted in federal court for “Deprived Civil Rights” and given sex offender conditions. Mr. Pilati was given a pardon with restoration of rights on December 8, 2015. He received the restoration of all his civil and political rights except the relief from the habitual offender act as well as relief from firearms disability. His relief from the effects of conviction for sex offense was granted.” FCSO then removed Pilati from the sex offender registry.

Following his pardon and removal from the sex offender registry, Pilati petitioned to be reinstated to the Alabama State Bar Association to return to practicing law. Following a May 2016 hearing, his petition was denied.

One person speaking against his reinstatement was Alabama Chief Deputy Attorney General Alice Martin, who went on to lead the charge in calling for a denial of his pardon application and the effective nullification of the two earlier partial pardons.

“Pilati’s application for a pardon and relief from the sex offender registration requirement is an attempt to obtain relief not permitted under Alabama law,” Martin stated in a letter to the board dated Feb. 21, 2017. “While the Board has limited authority to pardon a federal offense, its authority to restore certain civil and political rights does not extend to removal of sex offender registration requirement under Section 15-20A-43 of the Code of Alabama.”

Martin also called into question required notification that was not given prior to Pilati’s 2015 pardon, quoting from Section 15-22-36:

“The Board of Pardons and Paroles shall have no power to grant a pardon … or restore civil and political rights until 30 days’ notice … has been given by the board to the Attorney General, the judge who presided over the case, the district attorney who tried the subject’s case, the chief of police in the municipality in which the crime occurred … and to the sheriff …”

“Neither Alabama statutory law or this Board’s rules address the notification process to be invoked when a federal offense is at issue,” Martin asserted. “Accordingly, the notice provisions fail to detail the mechanisms and procedures for notification to federal authorities such as the United States Attorney General, the United States Attorney, or the federal investigative agency involved. Further there is no mechanism through which a federal victim would learn of a pardon application but for notice from the Board.

“If the Board is to exercise pardon authority for a federal offense, it must provide equal protection to federal victims and ensure proper notification. At the time of the December 8, 2015, pardon hearing no victims, prosecuting authority, law enforcement investigating authority or judge had received notice from the Board of the pending hearing. Furthermore, the record is unclear what efforts were made by the Victim Unit of the Board to (Court Four of the indictment) which involved a court finding of a “sex offense against a minor” which was affirmed on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Due to the lack of proper notification the pardon granted on December 8, 2015, was a legal nullity and is void.”

Martin said she urged the board to deny the pardon application from Pilati, for those reasons as well as in consideration of the nature of his original conviction.

“Under the strict theory of law, a pardon is given as a matter of ‘grace’ or ‘mercy’ and not one of justice,” Martin continued in her letter. “This Board is being asked to give the grace of the State of Alabama upon this defendant who abused his position in law enforcement to commit devastating acts upon young men. The Board must use its judgment to balance Pilati’s personal desire to be pardoned with the protection of society.

“Therefore, the underlying facts of his conviction should be given critical review by the Board, as well as any rehabilitation he asserts. The Alabama State Bar has reviewed his petition for reinstatement and denied it in 2016, and this should be considered by this panel as the bar conducted a thorough investigation and hearing of his petition for reinstatement.

“The Board is urged to deny the pardon application.”

Martin further asserted that the board did not have the authority to vacate the sex offender registry requirement, even if the pardon was granted. “The law does not grant authority to the Board to relieve an individual of a court-ordered registration requirement. Under Alabama law only the sentencing court – and no other agency or individual – may relieve an individual of the registration requirement,” she said.

Following the Wednesday hearing, the Attorney General’s office reported the denial of pardon and requirement that Pilati’s name be returned to the registry.

“John Pilati violated a solemn oath to protect and defend the people when he violated the civil rights through sexual contact with five different young men while he was district attorney,” Marshall said. “While Pilati served his sentence and was released in 2011, the nature of his crime against his victims and the violation of his oath of office demand that he should not be granted a pardon … I am pleased that the Board of Pardons and Paroles followed our recommendation to deny his pardons.”

“His crimes are not deserving of pardon, not in the position of trust he held,” Martin added.

Request for comment from Pilati was not returned.

According to Morgan, Pilati will – like any person denied pardon – be eligible to reapply for consideration in two years.