In re Lawrence: Preserving the Possibility of Parole for California Prisoners

In re Lawrence: Preserving the Possibility of Parole for California Prisoners


The California Supreme Court recently took a key step toward protecting the due process rights of prisoners. The court required the governor or Board of Parole Hearings (the “Board”) to present “some evidence” indicating that an inmate is currently dangerous to withstand judicial review of a decision denying parole. This outcome affects approximately twenty-three thousand California prisoners serving life sentences with the possibility of parole. After a suitability hearing, the Board may grant parole to these “lifers.” However, it rarely does so. The governor can then affirm, modify, or reverse the Board’s decision. California governors have overwhelmingly chosen to reverse. For example, from 1999 to 2003, Governor Davis reviewed 371 parole grants and approved only nine. The California Supreme Court, in 2002, held that thesedenials are subject to judicial review, but only to determine that the governor based his decision on “some evidence” related to the statutory factors. In response, the governor regularly presented the egregiousness of the crime, by itself, which the courts found to suffice as “some evidence” of unsuitability. Because almost all lifers, by definition, are guilty of criminal acts that may be considered egregious, this open-ended standard failed to effectively provide them with a remedy for violations of due process. In re Lawrence corrected this by holding that the evidence for denial must be rationally related to a finding of “current dangerousness.”9 By requiring courts to focus on current dangerousness, Lawrence increased the judiciary’s ability to reject the evidence presented to deny parole. This new discretion has finally permitted the judiciary to assert itself in the parole process, leading to better safeguarding of the due process rights of inmates.

PDF

More in this Issue

Should Crime Pay: A Critical Assessment of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996

The role of victim restitution in the criminal justice system has changed dramatically over the past quarter century. During that time, Congress enacted a series of legislation designed to strengthen and expand restitution at the federal level, morphing victim restitution from a judicial afterthought to a legislative mandate. The most notable piece of legislation was […]

Libertarian Welfarism

In a series of publications, Cass Sunstein & Richard Thaler, and Colin Camerer et al., have proposed an approach to legal policy that encourages individuals to pursue actions that will maximize their expected utility while not imposing on those individuals’ decisional autonomy. I contend that this policy approach – which has been called “libertarian paternalism” […]

Harmonization and Its Discontents: A Case Study of TRIPS Implementation in India’s Pharmaceutical Sector

In recent years, several controversial new intellectual property treaties have been adopted, most importantly the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS Agreement. Proponents argued that TRIPS would promote global trade and innovation by requiring developing countries to adopt western-style IP protection. Critics allege that the Agreement has potentially devastating implications for developing countries, particularly with regard to […]

Rico v. Mitsubishi: The Inadvertent Disclosure of California’s Flawed Work Product Doctrine

Rules governing attorney conduct in cases of inadvertent disclosure of privileged or protected materials must strike an appropriate balance between two competing bedrocks of American jurisprudence: an attorney’s ethical duty to represent her client zealously, and the evidentiary shield from discovery afforded privileged or protected documents. The California Supreme Court’s holding in Rico v. Mitsubishi […]

Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association: Local Voters, State Propositions, and the Fate of Property Assessments

Since 1978, fiscal limitations imposed by the California Constitution have curbed the ability of local governments to raise revenue. Recently, the California Supreme Court made one of the most important of these limitations even more restrictive. In Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, the court held that a property […]

North Coast Women’s Care: California’s Still-Undefined Standard for Protecting Religious Freedom

Ever since reproductive technology became widely available to treat fertility problems, some physicians have tried to limit access to this technology for various reasons, including the age, marital status, and sexual orientation of patients. In a landmark ruling, the California Supreme Court recently held that clinic physicians may not deny lesbians access to fertility treatment […]

The Marriage Cases – Reversing the Burden of Inertia in a Pluralist Constitutional Democracy

The California Supreme Court has replaced the New York Court of Appeals, the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court as the court at the cutting edge of many issues in American public law. The process of displacement probably began long ago, perhaps as early as 1948, when the […]

Judicial Opinions as Public Rhetoric

By any measure, the California Supreme Court’s decision in In re Marriage Cases is the most significant in the last year and in recent memory. Chief Justice George’s opinion thoroughly and forcefully explains why gay and lesbian individuals have the right to marry under the California Constitution. This conclusion is founded on basic principles of […]

Criminal Lying, Prosecutorial Power, and Social Meaning

This article concerns the prosecution of defensive dishonesty in the course of federal investigations. It offers a conceptual framework for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and related false statement charges by drawing distinctions between harmful deception and the typical investigative interaction and describing the range of lies that fall within the wide margins of […]