In In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948, a 4-3 Supreme Court held the defendant was not entitled to habeas corpus relief from a murder conviction that had been based in part on bite-mark testimony by a dental expert that, post-conviction, had been recanted by the expert himself and discredited by other experts based on newly available computer technology. The majority concluded the incriminating expert testimony was not “false evidence” within the meaning of the habeas corpus statute.
Last year, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed a bill to overrule the Richards decision. In January, the defendant filed another habeas corpus petition, this time directly in the Supreme Court. Yesterday, the court unanimously issued an order to show cause why relief should not be granted on the ground that the defendant was convicted based on false evidence as (newly) defined in the habeas corpus statute.
