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 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1058
Author: Leno (D), et al.
Amended: 6/4/14
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-1, 4/8/14
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, De León, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
NOES: Knight
SENATE FLOOR : 24-9, 4/10/14
AYES: Anderson, Beall, Block, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De
León, DeSaulnier, Evans, Gaines, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill,
Jackson, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Mitchell, Monning, Padilla, Pavley,
Roth, Steinberg, Torres
NOES: Berryhill, Fuller, Huff, Knight, Morrell, Nielsen, Vidak,
Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Galgiani, Hueso, Liu, Wolk, Wright,
Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 61-7, 6/23/14 - See last page for vote
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.
CONTINUED
SB 1058
Page
2
Assembly Amendments clarify that the provisions of the bill do
not create additional liabilities, beyond those already
recognized, for experts who repudiate his/her own original
opinion or whose basis has been repudiated by later scientific
or technological advancements.
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:
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:
1.Provides that for purposes of a writ of habeas corpus "false
evidence" shall include opinions of experts that have either
CONTINUED
SB 1058
Page
3
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.
2.Provides that these provisions do not create additional
liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for an expert
who repudiates his/her original opinion provided at a hearing
or trial or whose opinion has been undermined by later
scientific research or technological advancements.
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
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
CONTINUED
SB 1058
Page
4
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
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 6/24/14)
California Innocence Project (co-source)
Northern California Innocence Project (co-source)
American Civil Liberties Union
CONTINUED
SB 1058
Page
5
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Public Defenders Association
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Equal Justice Society
Friends Committee on Legislation
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/24/14)
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
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
CONTINUED
SB 1058
Page
6
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 61-7, 6/23/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla,
Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chávez, Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Hagman, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Olsen, Pan, Perea, John A. Pérez,
V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Waldron, Weber,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NOES: Allen, Conway, Fox, Beth Gaines, Grove, Harkey,
Muratsuchi
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Frazier, Gorell, Gray, Linder,
Logue, Mansoor, Nestande, Patterson, Wagner, Wilk, Vacancy
JG:e 6/24/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
SB 1058
Page
7
CONTINUED