Today's Law As Amended


PDF |Add To My Favorites |Track Bill | print page

SB-243 Trial testimony: expert witnesses: writ of habeas corpus.(2021-2022)



As Amends the Law Today


SECTION 1.

 Section 806 is added to the Evidence Code, immediately following Section 805, to read:

806.
 In any criminal proceeding, a court considering whether expert testimony is based on matter that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion pursuant to this article, shall determine whether the expert’s opinion, and supporting literature, studies, research, or other bases on which the expert relies in forming that opinion, are based on a reliable foundation, properly tested methodology, and sound logic. Whatever the underlying basis for the expert’s opinion, a court shall inquire into, not only the type of material on which the expert relies, but also whether the material provides a reasonable basis for the expert’s opinion or whether there is too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered for the testimony to be reliable and admissible. If the opinion or supporting literature, studies, research, or other bases lack a reliable foundation, properly tested methodology, and sound logic, they are not matter that may be reasonably relied upon. If a portion of the expert’s testimony extends beyond the underlying support, the court may allow the portions of the testimony that do not extend beyond the underlying support if they are otherwise admissible.

SEC. 2.

 Section 1473 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

1473.
 (a) A person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty, under any pretense, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint.
(b) 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 a hearing or trial relating to the person’s incarceration.
(2) False physical evidence, believed by a person to be factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty, which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person.
(3) (A) New evidence exists that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial.
(B) For purposes of this section, “new evidence” means evidence that has been discovered after trial, that could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching.
(c) Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (b).
(d) This section does not limit the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or preclude the use of any other remedies.
(e) (1) For purposes of this section, “false evidence” includes 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. scientific research, including scientific research that existed at the time the expert’s testimony was given, technological advances, or the emergence of a reasonable dispute with the expert’s relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods or theories upon which the expert based their opinion.  
(2) This section does not create additional liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for an expert who repudiates the original opinion provided at a hearing or trial or whose opinion has been undermined by later scientific research or technological advancements. scientific research, technological advancements, or the emergence of a reasonable dispute with the expert’s relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods or theories upon which the expert based their opinion. 
(f) Notwithstanding any other law, a writ of habeas corpus may also be prosecuted after judgment has been entered based on evidence that a criminal conviction or sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 745 if judgment was entered on or after January 1, 2021. A petition raising a claim of this nature for the first time, or on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be deemed a successive or abusive petition. If the petitioner has a habeas corpus petition pending in state court, but it has not yet been decided, the petitioner may amend the existing petition with a claim that the petitioner’s conviction or sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 745. The petition shall state if the petitioner requests appointment of counsel and the court shall appoint counsel if the petitioner cannot afford counsel and either the petition alleges facts that would establish a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 745 or the State Public Defender requests counsel be appointed. Newly appointed counsel may amend a petition filed before their appointment. The court shall review a petition raising a claim pursuant to Section 745 and shall determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause why relief shall not be granted and hold an evidentiary hearing, unless the state declines to show cause. The defendant shall appear at the hearing by video unless counsel indicates that their presence in court is needed. If the court determines that the petitioner has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the court shall state the factual and legal basis for its conclusion on the record or issue a written order detailing the factual and legal basis for its conclusion.