133 Cal. App. 4th 573 - In Re Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 63 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[o]nly a modicum of evidence is required. Resolution of any conflicts in the evidence and the weight to be given the evidence are matters within the authority of the [Board].... [T]he precise manner in which the specified factors relevant to parole suitability are considered and balanced lies within the discretion of the [Board], but the decision must reflect an individualized consideration of the specified criteria and cannot be arbitrary or capricious. It is irrelevant that a court might determine that evidence in the record tending to establish suitability for parole far outweighs evidence demonstrating unsuitability for parole. As long as the [Board's] decision reflects due consideration of the specified factors as applied to the individual prisoner in accordance with applicable legal standards, the court's review is limited to ascertaining whether there is some evidence in the record that supports the [Board's] decision.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 161 Cal. App. 4th 281 - In Re Singler · 141 Cal. App. 4th 807 - In Re Andrade

2. “a prisoner may be deemed unsuitable for release on the basis of the commitment offense `alone' . . . [citation], [this] proposition must be properly understood. The commitment offense is one of only two factors indicative of unsuitability a prisoner cannot change (the other being his `Previous Record of Violence'). Reliance on such an immutable factor `without regard to or consideration of subsequent circumstances' may be unfair [citation], and `runs contrary to the rehabilitative goals espoused by the prison system and could result in a due process violation.' [Citation.] The commitment offense can negate suitability only if circumstances of the crime reliably established by evidence in the record rationally indicate that the offender will present an unreasonable public safety risk if released from prison.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Cal. App. 4th 807 - In Re Andrade · 184 Cal. App. 4th 670 - In Re Calderon

3. “(1) Commitment Offense. The prisoner committed the offense in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. The factors to be considered include: "(A) Multiple victims were attacked, injured or killed in (he same or separate incidents. "(B) The offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner, such as an execution-style murder. "(C) The victim was abused, defiled or mutilated during or after the offense. "(D) The offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering. "(E) The motive for the crime is inexplicable or very trivial in relation to the offense. "(2) Previous Record of Violence. The prisoner on previous occasions inflicted or attempted to inflict serious injury on a victim, particularly if the prisoner demonstrated serious assaultive behavior at an early age. "(3) Unstable Social History. The prisoner has a history of unstable or tumultuous relationships with others. "(4) Sadistic Sexual Offenses. The prisoner has previously sexually assaulted another in a manner calculated to inflict unusual pain or fear upon the victim. "(5) Psychological Factors. The prisoner has a lengthy history of severe mental problems related to the offense. "(6) Institutional Behavior. The prisoner has engaged in serious misconduct in prison or jail.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 151 Cal. App. 4th 379 - In Re Gray · 150 Cal. App. 4th 1511 - In Re Lawrence