In Re William Richards on Habeas Corpus

Summary

The court held that posttrial disagreement, recantation, or technological criticism of an expert’s opinion does not establish false evidence unless a preponderance of the evidence shows that the trial opinion was objectively untrue. Although the new forensic evidence undermined the bite-mark testimony and raised questions about other evidence, it did not establish that any trial evidence was false or point unerringly to innocence. The court therefore affirmed the judgment vacating the superior court’s grant of habeas corpus relief.