A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Parole board denies or revokes several requests, reinstates two with conditions after June 11 hearings

June 11, 2026 | Committee on Parole, Boards & Commissions, Organizations, Executive, Louisiana


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Parole board denies or revokes several requests, reinstates two with conditions after June 11 hearings
The Louisiana Committee on Parole met June 11, 2026, at DOC headquarters in Baton Rouge with several remote sites and considered dozens of parole requests and revocation matters.

The board denied parole for several people during a marathon session that included extended testimony from victims, community reentry advocates and corrections staff. Christopher Johnson (DOC #472377), a first‑felony offender whose conviction involved a child victim, was denied parole after members cited recent jail writeups and “unanimous law‑enforcement opposition,” the board said. Members recommended additional sex‑offender programming before any future consideration.

In a contested hearing that drew the largest public turnout, relatives of victim Russell Roland described the family’s ongoing loss and urged the board to oppose release of Audi (Audie) Keith Jr. (DOC #393128). Kathy Walker, the victim’s mother, told the board she remains fearful: “He watched him screaming in pain and pleading for his life,” she said. The board denied Keith’s request.

Other denials included Drummond Turks (DOC #331953), where the panel voted 2–1 to deny parole, and several revocation hearings in which the board found probable cause and revoked parole, including Derek Holmes (parole revoked after findings of failure to report and a battery charge) and Roy H. Cremillion (parole revoked after contraband and domestic‑abuse allegations).

The board also took some conditional, rehabilitative steps. In two cases the panel declined to revoke parole and instead imposed or reaffirmed supervisory conditions.
Blaine Keith Green (DOC #565739) — who presented medical and psychological records showing schizoaffective disorder — had his parole reinstated on the condition that he continue mental‑health care, meet monthly with parole at home, stay away from the cited store and avoid contact with the complaining witness. The board noted counsel’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea in the underlying shoplifting matter and tailored supervision accordingly.

Derek Austin (DOC #783389) faced allegations that included a domestic incident that was later dismissed; the board voted not to revoke his parole but ordered enrollment in domestic‑abuse education, anger‑management work and closer drug‑testing and reporting requirements. Austin and his wife urged the board to consider the family’s caregiving pressures (his mother was diagnosed with dementia) when weighing technical violations.

Several hearings were continued. The board continued at least two matters until criminal courts resolve pending charges or until hearing participants produce additional documents — notably a preliminary revocation hearing for McCartney Young and a stalking/resisting case described as Dan E10 (DOC #566166).

Why the decisions matter: the Board balanced competing aims — public safety and victim impact on one hand, and evidence of rehabilitation and community reentry plans on the other. Where law‑enforcement offices and victims’ families expressed strong opposition, the board said it deferred to that public‑safety judgment; where counseling, housing offers and specialized programming were presented, board members often imposed conditions intended to reduce risk and support supervised reentry.

What’s next: Several denied applicants were told they may reapply after completing recommended programming and maintaining clear disciplinary records. Cases continued pending criminal court outcomes will return to the board after arraignment, trial or dismissal.

Votes at a glance
- Douglas Smith (DOC #373823): hearing continued until disposition of pending charges (continuance agreed by panel).
- Christopher Johnson (DOC #472377): parole denied (panel recommendation: further sex‑offender programming; unanimous law‑enforcement opposition noted).
- Drummond Turks (DOC #331953): parole denied, 2–1 vote.
- Audi (Audie) Keith Jr. (DOC #393128): parole denied after contested hearing with strong victim and law‑enforcement opposition.
- Derek Holmes (DOC #512138): parole revoked (panel found probable cause on missed reporting and battery charge).
- Roy H. Cremillion (DOC #779700): parole revoked (contraband and domestic‑abuse allegations).
- Eric C. Davis (DOC #341756): parole revoked after review of municipal/parish incidents and failure‑to‑report matters.
- Blaine Keith Green (DOC #565739): parole reinstated with conditions (monthly home visits by parole, continued mental‑health care, stay‑away conditions).
- Derek Austin (DOC #783389): parole not revoked; ordered to complete domestic‑abuse education, anger management and enhanced testing and reporting.
- Dan E10 (DOC #566166): hearing continued pending outcome of criminal case (stalking/resisting charges).

Quotes and evidence: advocates from Louisiana Parole Project and First 72 offered reentry support plans; Andrew Hunley of Louisiana Parole Project told the board a client “would have to reside at the parole project … until we’re confident that he displays continued sobriety” when discussing a conditional program offer. Victim statements were explicit and emotional: Kathy Walker said the family “will continue to try to tell them the stories” and urged the board to consider public‑safety consequences.

The board recorded specific, programmatic instructions in cases it did not revoke: required treatment programs, home‑based reporting and no‑contact conditions were common conditions imposed to support reentry while addressing safety concerns. Several members also urged that applicants maintain contraband‑free, writeup‑free records before resubmitting parole petitions.

Methodology note: This article synthesizes the Committee on Parole’s public hearing transcript of June 11, 2026. Quotations are drawn directly from the record and attributions match the speakers who spoke on the record. Procedural continuances were recorded when the board explicitly continued a matter until outside criminal proceedings concluded.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee