SB 938 · 2019-20
Broadens challenges to convictions based on expert testimony
Official subject Trial testimony: expert witnesses: writ of habeas corpus.
Didn't pass Stopped in the Senate · Did not advance before a deadline
Plain-language summary
Expands what counts as false evidence in a habeas corpus petition, a way to challenge imprisonment. It now includes expert opinions undermined by research that existed at trial, and opinions whose methods are reasonably disputed in the expert's scientific field. Expert opinions based on circular reasoning, meaning they assume what they try to prove, rely on improper material.
Official summary · Legislative Counsel's Digest
Describes the final version (Introduced, Feb. 6, 2020).
Read the official summary (4 paragraphs)
(1)Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis of false evidence that is substantially material or probative to the issue of guilt or punishment that was introduced at trial. Existing law defines false evidence for these purposes as including the opinions of experts that have been repudiated by the expert or that have been undermined by later scientific research or technological advances.
This bill would expand the definition of false evidence to include the opinions of experts that are undermined by scientific research that existed at the time of the expert’s testimony and opinions for which a reasonable dispute has emerged within the expert’s relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods or theories upon which the expert based their opinion.
(2)Existing law limits the testimony of a witness who is testifying as an expert to matter that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which the expert’s testimony relates. Existing law allows a witness testifying in the form of an opinion to state on direct examination the reasons for their opinion and the matter upon which it is based.
This bill would specify that an expert opinion based on circular reasoning is not based on matter that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon a subject. The bill would define circular reasoning as referring to any portion of an expert’s opinion that is solely based upon the premise that the expert seeks to conclude, including any portion of the opinion or testimony that is based upon studies, literature, data, or other materials on which the expert relies that accepts the same unproven premise that the studies, literature, data, or other materials on which the expert relies seeks to conclude.
Official title
An act to amend Section 802 of the Evidence Code, and to amend Section 1473 of the Penal Code, relating to trial testimony.
Timeline
- Feb. 6, 2020 Introduced
- May 12, 2020 Stopped in the Senate Did not advance before a deadline
Full official history (6 actions)
- Feb. 6, 2020 Introduced: Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
- Feb. 7, 2020 From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 8.
- Feb. 20, 2020 Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.
- March 11, 2020 Set for hearing March 31.
- March 18, 2020 March 31 hearing postponed by committee.
- May 12, 2020 Referral to Com. on JUD. rescinded due to the shortened 2020 Legislative Calendar.