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

Summary

Justice Liu concurs in the court’s determination that admission of false bite-mark evidence at Richards’s third trial was prejudicial and that the conviction must be reversed. She reasons that the evidence supplied a direct link between Richards and the victim, the remaining evidence was close, and two earlier juries had deadlocked when the bite-mark evidence was absent. Justice Corrigan, concurring separately, agrees with the result but disputes the significance of the prior hung juries and cautions against drawing conclusions from them without complete trial records.