Supreme Court of California

Defendant's conviction for the 1997 murder of his wife, based largely on a circumstantial evidence of a bite mark on the victim, to which a dental expert testified that defendant's unusual dentition was consistent with the shape of the bite, is affirmed where: 1) in determining whether a conviction is based on "false evidence" when it depends in part on the opinion of an expert witness, and posttrial advances in technology have raised doubts about the expert's trial testimony without conclusively proving that testimony to be untrue, in such circumstances the expert's trial testimony has not been shown to be "false evidence," but the information garnered from the technological advances may be presented as newly discovered evidence in support of habeas relief; and 2) habeas relief should be granted only if the new evidence points unerringly to innocence or reduced culpability, a showing the defendant here has not made.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/03/2012
• Published 12/03/2012

Judges

• Kennard

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel