San Francisco Skyline
BILL OF RIGHTS-- First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.-- Second Amendment -A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed-- Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law-- Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.-- Fifth Amendment - No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.--Sixth Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.-- Seventh Amendment - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law-- Eighth Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted-- Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people--Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people--.
Taking the Fifth-A Criminal Law Blog
RSS icon Email icon Bullet (black)
  • CALIFORNIA COURTS REAFFIRM DANGER TO SOCIETY STANDARD FOR DENIAL OF PAROLE

    California courts have again, in In re Lazor, reminded the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board) of the requirement that it must either set a date for the release of an inmate sentenced to an indeterminate period or it must find that one of the statutory factors related to suitability provides some evidence that the inmate remains a danger to society.

    In re Lazor, like many of the cases coming before the courts in recent months relates to a case that was heard before the Board prior to the California Supreme Court decisions in In re Shaputis and In re Lawrence In Lawrence and Shaputis the Court explained the “some evidence rule.” Prior to Lawrence and Shaputis all the Board had to do was show that there was some evidence that one of the factors related to release of a prisoner existed. But as Lawrence and Shaputis made clear the Board must show that some evidence of the factor exists and that it indicates that the prisoner if released will be a danger to society.

    Thus the Superior Courts and the Courts of Appeal are reviewing many of the Board’s decisions made prior to Lawrence and Shaputis on writs of habeas corpus and sending them back for rehearings in cases where the Board did not relate the suitability factors to a claim of current dangerousness to society.

    In In re Lazor, decided by the Board on February 23, 2006, it merely pointed out several suitability factors related to release without stated whether it was relying upon the factors to determine that Lazor remained a danger to society. Perhaps, chief among these was the nature of the crime. The Superior Court in deciding the original writ of habeas corpus reviewed the trial transcript and found that as murders go, Lazor’s may have had an imperfect self defense claim that was not sufficient to justify his acts but which was not particularly horrendous. The appellate court rejected the Superior Court’s claim since the courts must give deference to the findings of the Board. But nevertheless the Appellate Court returned the case to the Board, ordering a new hearing, on the ground that the Board did not make a finding that Lazor is currently a danger to society.