8 Cal. 3d 470 - In Re Prewitt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 124 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “From the inmate’s point of view a policy of nondisclosure increases the potential for unfairness. Unless the prisoner learns what information is in the Authority’s possession he cannot intelligently decide what subjects to discuss at his predisposition interview. (See § 5077.) Especially with respect to statements containing information which may be inaccurate and was not presented at trial — either because the information was not sufficiently trustworthy, was not legally admissible or had not been obtained at that time — the inmate may have no knowledge of even the fact of the lodging of false or inaccurate charges. In such a situation a refusal to apprise him of the source and nature of all the information would effectively deny all reasonable opportunity to respond. “ ‘[T]he stakes are simply too high . . . and the possibility for honest error or irritable misjudgment too great, to allow’ ” submission of such potentially damaging remarks without at least an opportunity to challenge them. In re Prewitt, 8 Cal.3d 470, 475 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 318, 323 , 503 P.2d 1326, 1331 (1972).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Coralluzzo v. New York State Parole Board

2. “(a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole [furlough, or internal disciplinary rules]; (b) disclosure to the [prospective] parolee of evidence against' him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a “neutral and detached” hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking [or rescinding] parole.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 84 Wash. 2d 922 - Monohan v. Burdman

3. “"Although the proceedings of which petitioner complains were not for revocation of parole but for rescission of an unexecuted grant of parole, we can perceive no significant distinction between the deprivation of the right to conditional liberty enjoyed by a parolee after release and the deprivation of the right to achieve such liberty after a grant thereof but before the dated fixed for release. In either event the parolee has been deprived of a valuable if limited right to be free .. . and the same or substantially the same protection must be accorded him in effecting that deprivation." (Emphasis ours.) 105 Cal. Rptr. 318, 322 , 503 P.2d 1326, 1330 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Means v. Wainwright