explaining that in considering parole, “an implausible denial of guilt may support a finding of dangerousness . . . . In such a case it is not the failure to admit guilt that reflects a lack of insight, but the fact that the denial is factually unsupported or otherwise lacking in credibility”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that in considering parole, “an implausible denial of guilt may support a finding of dangerousness . . . . In such a case it is not the failure to admit guilt that reflects a lack of insight, but the fact that the denial is factually unsupported or otherwise lacking in credibility”
- cone. opn. of Liu, L
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHIN, J., Concurring.
I dissented in In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 169 , 190 P.3d 535 ] (Lawrence). I believed then, and still believe, the majority opinion in that case was ill considered. Lawrence is largely responsible for the confusion in the Courts of Appeal that today’s opinion seeks to ameliorate. However, my view in Lawrence did not prevail, and I now accept the majority view. For this reason, I concur entirely in this case.