In Re William Richards on Habeas Corpus — Corrigan, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Corrigan concurred in the majority's determination that admission of false bite-mark evidence was material and caused a reasonable probability of prejudice, but wrote separately to reject reliance on two prior hung juries as evidence that the prosecution's case was weak. She reasoned that the trials differed substantially in witnesses, counsel, judges, evidence, and presentation, making the significance of the prior hung juries speculative. Justice Liu, concurring separately, agreed with the result but maintained that the prior hung juries further supported prejudice because the bite-mark evidence was the material difference between the unsuccessful trials and the conviction trial.