BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1058| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1058 Author: Leno (D) Amended: As introduced Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-1, 4/8/14 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, De León, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg NOES: Knight SUBJECT : Writ of habeas corpus SOURCE : California Innocence Project Northern California Innocence Project DIGEST : This bill allows a writ of habeas corpus when evidence given at trial has subsequently been repudiated by the expert that testified or undermined by later scientific research or technological advances. ANALYSIS : Existing law: 1.Provides that every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his/her liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint. (Penal Code Sec. 1473(a).) 2.States that a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons: CONTINUED SB 1058 Page 2 A. False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt, or punishment was introduced against a person at any hearing or trial relating to his/her incarceration; B. False physical evidence believed by a person to be factual, material or probative on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty and which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person; and C. Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus. (Penal Code Sec. 1473(b).) 1.Specifies that nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or as precluding the use of any other remedies. (Penal Code Sec. 1473(d).) This bill provides that for purposes of a writ of habeas corpus "false evidence" shall include opinions of experts that have either been repudiated by the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that have been undermined by later scientific research or technological advances. Background The issue this bill seeks to address was clearly depicted in the California Supreme Court case, In Re Richards, 55 Cal.4th 948 (2012). The Richards 4-3 majority upheld petitioner's conviction, holding that "expert testimony" is different from other types of testimony in that it is merely the opinion of the expert, not evidence in and of itself, and so can never be "true" or "false." Because of this, the court found Richards had failed to establish the falsity of the original expert testimony, which had served as the basis for his conviction. The Richards dissent, written by Justice Liu, pointed out the injustice of the majority opinion; noting that the false evidence statute Penal Code Sec. 1473(b), used by the majority, did not make a distinction between lay and expert testimony, but that the majority's opinion placed a heavier burden on any CONTINUED SB 1058 Page 3 petitioner seeking relief from false evidence presented by expert testimony. Liu noted that there is no reason to treat the two types of testimony differently because, just as the truth or falsity of the eyewitness testimony under [Section] 1473(b) depends on the truth or falsity of the underlying facts concerning their perceptual abilities, so too does the truth or falsity of the expert's testimony depend on the underlying facts essential to the expert's inferential method and opinion. Habeas Corpus Habeas corpus, also known as "the Great Writ", is a process guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions to obtain prompt judicial relief from illegal restraint. The functions of the writ is set forth in Penal Code Section 1473(a): "Every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his/her liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint." A writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons: 1.False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt, or punishment was introduced against a person at any hearing or trial relating to his incarceration; 2.False physical evidence believed by a person to be factual, material or probative on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty and which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person; and 3.Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus. (Penal Code Sec. 1473(b). False Evidence As noted in the author's statement In Re Richards, 55 Cal.4th 948 (2012) found that in a habeas petition the "false evidence standard is not met" just because new technology causes an expert to reject his/her earlier testimony. The fact that the expert has changed his/her opinion has no bearing on the validity of the original opinion. This was a change in the law. Prior to Richards cases where technology or science has changed CONTINUED SB 1058 Page 4 were brought successfully. As science changes, theories used by experts in trials becomes outdated. For example outdated or flawed "science" used by arson investigators has caused the state of Texas to review [Section] 1085 Texas arson convictions. And, questions have been raised about the science of "shaken baby syndrome" as used in criminal convictions. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 4/8/14) California Innocence Project (source) Northern California Innocence Project (source) American Civil Liberties Union California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Catholic Conference California Public Defenders Association Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Friends Committee on Legislation Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety OPPOSITION : (Verified 4/8/14) California District Attorneys Association ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The American Civil Liberties Union states: Innocent individuals could and often did successfully challenge their convictions when evidence underlying their original conviction has been substantially undermined by scientific and technological advances. One such instance was the case with Kenneth Marsh. Marsh was convicted in November 1983 for the death of 33-month old Philip Buell, who died 10 months earlier from a head injury sustained when he fell off a couch and hit his head on a brick hearth. Although the incident was originally treated as an accidental fall by the San Diego prosecutors later charged Marsh with the murder of young Philip. At trial, the prosecution's medical experts claimed that the only way Philip could have CONTINUED SB 1058 Page 5 sustained the injuries was through abuse. Marsh filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in October 2002 seeking a new trial after evidence was uncovered that proved Marsh's innocence. Based on the false evidence provided at Marsh's original trial, his habeas corpus petition was granted and new charges were dismissed-he is now a free man. Had Marsh's case been decided today, it is possible that he would remain in prison for the tragic accidental death of Buell. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California District Attorneys Association states: Certainly, experts who provide testimony that they know to be untrue should be prosecuted under the myriad laws that already cover perjury, false evidence and obstruction of justice. However, an expert opinion that is later invalidated by scientific or technological advances is not false evidence. To categorize it as such is to suggest some nefarious intent on the part of the expert that likely does not exist. More generally, we believe that this clarification is unnecessary. It is already clear that a writ of habeas corpus may not be filed for any reason. The seemingly limitless ground for which a writ of habeas corpus may be filed would ostensibly include experts who have repudiated their prior opinions, as well as opinions that have later been invalidated by scientific and technological advances. While we believe it is inaccurate and prejudicial to define these opinions as false evidence, we agree that persons who have been convicted as a result of flawed opinion should be able to file for a writ of habeas corpus. In fact, they already can. JG:e 4/9/14 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED SB 1058 Page 6 CONTINUED