In Re William Richards on Habeas Corpus

Summary

The court granted habeas relief under the amended definition of false evidence because the prosecution expert repudiated his trial bite-mark opinion and later technological advances undermined it. The court further held that relief depended on whether the false evidence was materially prejudicial, not whether the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and found a reasonable probability that the evidence affected the verdict. Justice Corrigan, concurring, cautioned against relying on prior hung juries without complete records, while Justice Liu, concurring, regarded the prior hung juries as additional evidence of prejudice.