In Re Richard Shaputis on Habeas Corpus — Liu, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Liu concurred in the court’s conclusion that the Court of Appeal improperly treated earlier evidence of petitioner’s lack of insight as having disappeared, particularly because petitioner withheld current information from parole authorities. The concurrence emphasizes that judicial review of parole decisions must be highly deferential but must focus on the evidence and reasoning actually relied upon by the parole authority, and that lack of insight supports denial only when rationally connected to current dangerousness. Justice Chin, concurring, accepted the majority’s approach despite continuing to disagree with the earlier governing decision, while Justice Werdegar, concurring, would not address an unnecessary issue discussed in footnote 11.