California Supreme Court wrestles with bite mark evidence, loses

The L.A. Times is reporting on what appears to be an awful decision by the California Supreme Court. In a case reminiscent of Mississippi in the days of "expert" witness Dr. Michael West, the California Supreme Court has refused to grant a new trial to a man convicted on discredited "bite mark" evidence.

At his third trial (two hung juries had before refused to convict), William Richards was convicted of murdering his wife. The difference between the first two trials and the third was the introduction of bite mark evidence by the prosecution. ("Bite mark" evidence has been discredited here in Mississippi.) In the third trial, a prosecution "expert" witness testified that something on the decedent's hand appearing to be a bite mark was a near-certain match to Mr. Richards' teeth.

Of course years later, when presented with better photographs of the mark on the hand, the "expert" recanted his testimony, saying that wasn't a match to the defendant's teeth. Oh, and then there's the whole "other person's DNA on the murder weapon" thing that came to light as well.

None of that mattered, though, to 4 of the California Supreme Court justices, who refused to grant Mr. Richards a new trial.  Grass ain't always greener, I guess....