You probably want to write a fairly detailed opinion in that one, no? If only because (1) lots of people are going to read it (or at least hear about it), and (2) people are definitely going to mention the thing to you during the occasional cocktail parties and the like.
I won't recount the details of the various Manson murders, of which you're probably at least already dimly aware. Suffice it to say that Leslie Van Houten was an active -- and infamous -- participant. At this point, she's been in prison for over a half a century. The Court of Appeal concludes that's long enough; that she's no longer a danger.
It's not surprising in the slightest that (1) the parole board ultimately found her suitable for parole, and (2) the governor reversed that decision -- as he's done every single time she's been found eligible. In today's opinion and dissent, no one mentions the following fact. But everyone knows full well that there's no way in hell that a governor who -- like Newsom -- wants to eventually become President of the United States is going to sign off on granting parole to someone as infamous as Ms. Van Houten.
Justice Rothschild dissents from Justice Bendix's opinion. She thinks there's at least a "modicum" of evidence that supports Justice Newsom's opinion.
But the majority votes otherwise. And I doubt that the California Supreme Court will decide to grant review.
So this 73-year old woman is likely to, in fact, get out of prison relatively soon.
