On the one hand, you've got the fact that petitioner here -- who was convicted of murder -- killed her husband after claiming to be abused. That tends to invoke sympathy. Plus, she's 70 years old at this point. Not likely to be a danger. Moreover, she's has been in prison for almost thirty years. Where she has had an exemplary record. These facts militate in favor of a grant of parole, right? And she's got fancy (and likely pro bono) counsel, Nixon Peabody, to file her habeas petition.
On the other hand, she was a career call girl. She's never really expressed sincere remorse for her crime. The person she killed -- her husband -- was in a wheelchair. Who was 69 at the time of the murder. And who was thinking about divorcing her. Oh, and he was her fifth husband. Who died by being stabbed. Not once. Not twice. Fifty one times. A stabbing that occurred five months after they were married. Plus, nine months after the murder of her fifth husband, she met and married Husband Number Six. Whom she struck on the head with a hammer while she was on bail for the murder of Husband Number Five. Marriage No. Six didn't last either. But at least the husband lived through it.
The Board decided to deny parole. The trial court reversed. The Court of Appeal reverses and reinstates the Board's decision.