Gaulden v. California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “an individual’s mental health could be relevant to the determination of whether a crime is particularly serious” (emphasis added)
• holding that “danger to the 34 G.C. V. BONDI community” is the “essential key” to a particularly serious crime determination (citation omitted)
• holding that “danger to the community” is the “essential key” to a particularly serious crime determination (citation omitted)
• holding that courts may consider mental health evidence when determining if a conviction is a “particularly serious crime”
• holding that the BIA’s “rationale—that evidence of an individual’s mental condition at the time he or she committed the crime of conviction is categorically irrelevant—is unreasonable”
• holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals acted arbitrarily and capriciously by \constrain[ing] the evidence that [judges] may consider when making a particularly serious crime determination\ when it had previously held that reliable evidence should not be excluded

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).