Latest Case: In re King (Constitutional Law)

What About the Bar Exam After the 2020 Dust Settles?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on some of the questions commentators and analysts are, or will soon be, asking—specifically why we have bar exams for legal licensure, and, assuming we retain them, what they should look like going forward. Amar observes the limitations of the so-called diploma privilege advocated by some and suggests that states adopt greater interstate uniformity in their bar exams, shift toward more performance (as opposed to memorization) exams, and move away from being so time pressured.

Read More

In re King

Docket: E074401(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: September 18, 2020

Judge: Menetrez

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2016, Proposition 57 amended the California Constitution to allow early parole consideration for persons “convicted of a nonviolent felony.” The regulations the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) adopted pursuant to Proposition's authority excluded from early parole consideration any person convicted of an offense requiring the person to register as a sex offender. Ural King was serving 25 years to life for 2000 conviction of possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. The CDCR denied King early parole consideration under Proposition 57 on the ground that he was required to register as a sex offender because of prior offenses. King petitioned for habeas relief, claiming that the CDCR’s regulation improperly excluded from the benefits of Proposition 57 inmates like him who were serving sentences for nonviolent offenses but were required to register as sex offenders because of prior offenses. The Court of Appeal concluded the plain language of section Cal. Const., art. I, section 32(a)(1) required early parole consideration to be based solely on the present offense of conviction. The Court therefore concluded the CDCR regulation excluding from early parole consideration prisoners who were required to register as sex offenders because of prior convictions was invalid. Consequently, King’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted.