Senate Bill 467: Correcting Mistakes of the Past with the Science of the Present

On January 28, 2022, Senate Bill 467 passed the Senate with a 30-3 vote, sending it to the Assembly where it now needs to pass with a majority vote before being sent to the Governor for his signature. If enacted, Senate Bill 467 will strengthen the grounds on which individuals wrongfully convicted of a crime can seek post-conviction relief and ultimately help exonerate innocent people in prisons across California.

In California there are only four types of claims that can be used to reverse a conviction of an innocent person — Brady violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, new evidence, and false evidence. The standard of proof in these cases is incredibly high. In cases of false evidence, a person unlawfully imprisoned may bring forth a writ of habeas corpus claim under Penal Code section 1473 based on evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt. Because a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks to collaterally attack a presumptively final criminal judgment, the petitioner bears the heavy burden of producing evidence and the burden of proof.

Since 1989, California has only had 260 exonerations — 15% of those exonerations were based on false science and in 66% of those cases the person was wrongly given a life sentence. Collectively, those exonerated spent over 800 years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

At the California Innocence Project (CIP) at California Western School of Law, one of our missions is to effectuate policy and enact laws to assist with criminal legal reform and help get the innocent out of prison. Over the last 20 years, CIP, as part of the California Innocence Coalition (CIC), has successfully helped passed laws that help prevent and remedy wrongful convictions, in addition to providing resources for victims of these wrongful convictions to get back on their feet. The CIC consists of the three innocence projects in California: the California Innocence Project, the Northern California Innocence Project and the Loyola Project for the Innocent.

Prior to 2014, the law governing habeas corpus claims under a false evidence theory allowed a judge to reconsider a conviction only if a key eyewitness recanted his or her testimony, but the same standard did not apply to expert witnesses who depend on new and emerging technologies to make their conclusions. In 2014, the CIC successfully advocated for the passage of Senate Bill 1058, which expanded the definition of false evidence to include expert opinions that have either: (1) been renounced by the original expert who provided the opinion at a hearing or trial; or (2) been undermined by later scientific research or technological advances. This law was inspired by, and resulted in the exoneration of, William “Bill” Richards, CIP’s client who was exonerated after serving 23 years in prison for a murder he did not commit.

Bill’s erroneous conviction largely stemmed from a faulty police investigation and the prosecution’s use of false scientific evidence, or “junk science,” known as bite mark analysis. The prosecution argued that there appeared to be a bite mark on the victim’s body that allegedly matched Bill’s teeth. At an evidentiary hearing, CIP challenged the state’s evidence and presented two bite mark experts who had previously testified against Bill. Both experts recanted their prior testimony based on their reevaluation of the bite mark evidence under new scientific standards. They testified that their previous testimony not only was proven to be false, but that the new science excluded Bill as the source of the mark found on the victim’s body. In fact, the new advancements could not even determine whether the bite marks came from a human or an animal, which police admitted had been at the scene. 

At the end of the hearing, Judge Brian McCarville of the San Bernardino Superior Court concluded, “Not only does the bite mark evidence appear to be questionable, it puts [Bill] as being excluded. And … the DNA evidence establishes that someone other than [Bill] and the victim was at the crime scene.” The hearing, however, did not lead to Bill’s immediate release. Bill was supposed to be released from prison in 2009, but because the state found a loophole in the way the law was written, he was kept in prison for several more years. On May 26, 2016, after the passage of Senate Bill 1058, the California Supreme Court finally reversed Bill’s conviction in a 7-0 decision. On June 21, 2016, Bill finally walked out of prison.

Although Senate Bill 1058 ultimately helped gain Bill’s release, the CIP realized that the law needed to be reexamined to address the issues stemming from the emerging reasonable scientific disputes in the forensic science community.

Just last year, the CIC, with the help of California State Senator Scott Wiener, introduced Senate Bill 467. This bill proposes changes to Penal Code section 1473 to ensure that scientific advancements and discoveries are being considered in cases where a person may have been convicted based on outdated understandings of forensic science.

Senate Bill 467 clarifies that “false testimony” also includes opinions based on flawed scientific research or outdated technology that is now deemed unreliable or moot. These proposed changes create a new habeas claim that allows the petitioner to introduce evidence whose scientific validity is subject to reasonable dispute. If the court determines that there is a reasonable dispute, then a person’s conviction can be reversed and the person can be retried, requiring both sides to persuade a new jury based on the current state of the science.

Forensic science is surpassing the current standards of law, according to CIP’s Associate Director of Development and Policy Jasmin Harris. “The inherent issue,” she says, “is that the foundation of science is evolution and the notion that scientists are constantly looking forward; however, the foundation of law is different in that the law is constantly looking backwards toward case law and legislative history.” It is no shock, then, that one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions is “junk science” arising from the disconnect between current standards of science and outdated standards of law.

As depicted in shows like “CSI” or “Law & Order,” juries tend to lend more credibility to a forensic sciences expert, even without a clear demonstration of precision in their methods. In addition, studies have found that once a science has been accepted in a court, rarely is that science scrutinized in future prosecutions. This rigid adherence to accepted but outdated paradigms exemplifies California’s need for Senate Bill 467. Given that science is constantly and rapidly evolving, we need to ensure we are keeping the courts up to date on novel scientific advancements so the courts can remain true gatekeepers of reliable science.

If you are interested in keeping up with the bill, subscribe to both the California Innocence Project and California Innocence Coalition for updates. In addition, new attorneys wanting to contribute to CIP’s effort can apply to be a volunteer attorney. For more information, feel free to contact me at csalinas@cwsl.edu.