People v. Richards
63 Cal. 4th 291
| Cal. | 2016Background
- William Richards was convicted in 1997 of murdering his wife; conviction affirmed on appeal and he was sentenced to 25 years to life.
- At trial the prosecution relied in part on forensic odontologist Dr. Norman Sperber, who testified that a crescent lesion on the victim’s hand was a human bite mark consistent with Richards’ unusual lower dentition; Sperber’s exhibit (cast/photo/transparency) was given to the jury.
- Postconviction experts at a 2009 habeas hearing used newer digital techniques (removal of angular distortion) and concluded the photograph was unreliable or excluded Richards’ teeth; Sperber later repudiated his trial testimony and said he could not now say the mark was a human bite consistent with Richards.
- In 2012 this Court (Richards I) split 4–3 and held a changed expert opinion alone did not establish “false evidence” under Penal Code §1473 unless the trial opinion was shown objectively untrue; the majority required proof by a preponderance that the original opinion was objectively false.
- In 2014 the Legislature amended Penal Code §1473 to provide that “false evidence” includes expert opinions repudiated by the original expert or undermined by later scientific research or technological advances.
- Applying the amended §1473 to the existing habeas record, the Court concluded Sperber’s trial testimony constituted false evidence and that its admission created a reasonable probability of a different outcome; the petition for habeas corpus was granted and the conviction vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a later-recanted expert opinion is “false evidence” under §1473 (post-2014 amendment) | Richards: repudiate by expert or undermined by later science/tech qualifies as false evidence | People: earlier Richards I treated expert-opinion changes as not necessarily false absent objective falsity; this is effectively a sufficiency challenge | Court: Under §1473(e)(1) (2014) expert repudiation or undermining by later science/tech is false evidence; Sperber repudiated and the corrected photo undermined his trial opinion, so it is false evidence |
| Whether new technology (photo correction) undermines Sperber’s trial opinion | Richards: digital correction of angular distortion and subsequent expert analyses undermine the basis for Sperber’s matching opinion | People: argued petition raises inadmissible sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim and that remaining circumstantial evidence is strong | Court: The corrected photo and expert testimony undermined Sperber’s trial opinion; under the amended statute that suffices to show false evidence |
| Whether the false evidence was material (prejudice standard) | Richards: bite-mark testimony was a key, visceral link; without it, the circumstantial case was close and a reasonable probability exists that verdict would differ | People: contend removing Sperber’s evidence would be mere reweighing (sufficiency), not cognizable | Court: Materiality judged by reasonable-probability/Watson standard; given heavily contested circumstantial evidence and credible defense explanations, admission of Sperber’s false testimony was reasonably probable to affect outcome |
| Whether the petition is procedurally barred as successive | Richards: amendment changed governing law; relies on prior evidentiary record | People: implied procedural objections | Court: Change in law removes successiveness bar; court considered existing 2009 habeas hearing record and resolved the petition on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Richards, 55 Cal.4th 948 (Cal. 2012) (prior 4–3 decision holding expert opinion change does not necessarily equal false evidence absent proof opinion was objectively untrue)
- In re Malone, 12 Cal.4th 935 (Cal. 1996) (petitioners bear burden to prove falsity by preponderance under §1473)
- In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 1993) (new evidence must point unerringly to innocence to prevail when false-evidence standard not met)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (established the reasonably probable standard for prejudice under state law)
- In re Hall, 30 Cal.3d 408 (Cal. 1981) (recanted eyewitness testimony can constitute false evidence under §1473)
- In re Roberts, 29 Cal.4th 726 (Cal. 2003) (false evidence is materially probative if there is a reasonable probability result would differ)
- Cassini v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Cal.4th 780 (Cal. 2004) (prejudice requires demonstrable reality, not speculation)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (prior hung jury can be relevant to prejudice assessment in appropriate records)