In re Richards, 55 Cal. 4th 948

Petitioner William Richards was tried for the 1993 murder of his wife Pamela Richards; the case rested largely on circumstantial evidence, including a hand bite-mark allegedly matching Richards’ teeth, presented by the prosecution’s dental expert Sperber.
At trial (1997), Sperber testified that the bite mark was consistent with Richards’ dentition and that Richards’ dental irregularity occurred in about 1–2% of the population.
In 2007, Richards sought habeas relief, presenting new dental-expert testimony and new DNA/photography evidence suggesting errors or limitations in Sperber’s trial conclusions.
The Superior Court granted habeas relief based on the new evidence, but the Court of Appeal vacated, concluding Richards failed to show “new evidence” that unerringly points to innocence.
The California Supreme Court then granted review to address whether false-evidence claims under Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (b) apply to expert testimony and whether newly discovered evidence can warrant habeas relief absent unerring innocence.
The majority held that the false-evidence standard does not require proof that Sperber’s trial opinion was objectively false, and that Richards failed to prove false evidence or unerring innocence; nevertheless, the case reaffirms that newly discovered evidence must point unerringly to innocence to warrant relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether false evidence under §1473(b) extends to expert testimony.	Richards argues Sperber’s trial testimony was false evidence.	People contends the false-evidence standard applies to underlying premises, not necessarily the ultimate expert conclusion.	False-evidence claim fails; testimony not proven objectively false under the standard.
Whether new evidence unerringly establishes innocence.	Richards contends the new dental/DNA/photo-evidence points unerringly to innocence.	People argues the new evidence does not conclusively prove innocence.	New evidence does not unerringly establish innocence; relief denied on this ground.
What standard of proof governs false-evidence claims under §1473(b).	Richards urges a lower or different standard than preponderance.	People supports preponderance as the proper standard per Malone.	Preponderance of the evidence governs false-evidence findings under §1473(b).

In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (California Supreme Court 1993) (newly discovered evidence must point unerringly to innocence or reduced culpability)
In re Hall, 30 Cal.3d 408 (California Supreme Court 1981) (false evidence requires showing underlying perceptual basis was false)
In re Wright, 78 Cal.App.3d 788 (California Court of Appeal 1978) (amendment to §1473(b)—false evidence need not be perjury; prejudice standard applies)
Malone, 12 Cal.4th 935 (California Supreme Court 1996) (preponderance standard for falsity under §1473(b))
In re Roberts, 29 Cal.4th 726 (California Supreme Court 2003) (false evidence materiality under §1473(b) and prejudice)