In Re William Richards on Habeas Corpus

Summary

The court held that the 2014 amendment to Penal Code section 1473 applies to petitioner’s renewed habeas petition and establishes that the prosecution expert’s bite-mark testimony constituted false evidence because the expert repudiated it and later technological advances undermined it. The court further held that the false evidence was materially prejudicial because there was a reasonable probability it affected the verdict, and it granted habeas relief by vacating the judgment of conviction. Justice Corrigan, concurring, cautioned against inferring weakness from prior hung juries, while Justice Liu, concurring, viewed those hung juries as further evidence of prejudice.