Richards Vindictive Prosecution Motion

[J
1 JAN STIGLlTZ
State Bar No. 103815
2 JUSTIN BROOKS
3 ALEXANDER SIMPSON
4
ALlSSA BJERKHOEL
5 State Bar No. 261245
CAUFORNIA INNOCENCE PROJECT
6 California Western School of Law
225 Cedar Street
7 San Diego, CA 92101
Tel.: (619) 515-1525
8 Fax: (619) 615-1425
ajs@cwsl.edu
9
Attorneys for Defendant
10 WllllAMJOSEPH RICHARDS
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - VICTORVILLE DISTRICT
13 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Superior Court No. FVI00826

CALIFORNIA, )
14
) MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES FOR
15 Plaintiff, ) INSDmCIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE (Pen.
v. ) Code, § 995), VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION,
16 ) AND SUGGESTION TO DISMISS IN THE
WllliAMJOSEPH RICHARDS, ) INTERESTS OF JUSTICE (Pen. Code, §
17 ) 1385); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
) AUTHORITIES AND EXIDBITS IN
18 Defendant. ) SUPPORT THEREOF
19
No one close to William Joseph Richards and his wife, Pamela, ever thought he was
20
responsible for her murder. TI1e evidence did not seem to support that inference either. It took the
21
People three full jury trials to obtain a conviction. During that time, the victim's family insisted the
22
People were prosecuting the wrong person. Since then, the conviction has twice been reversed on
23
habeas. Once, by a judge of this court who fom1d that post-conviction evidence presented by the
24
California Innocence Project completely m1dermined the People's case against him and pointed
25
m1erringly to his innocence. Then by the Califomia Supreme Court in a unanimous decision in which
26
they fom1d the People introduced false evidence against Richards. It is a conviction that has resulted
27
in laws being changed by the Legislature in response to Richards's wrongful conviction. It is also a case
28
where Richards has served 23 years for this crime, has been found suitable for parole, and is battling
MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE & VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION

1
1 prostate cancer.
2 Given these circumstances, it is apparent that, not only is the evidence insufficient to proceed
3 to a jury trial on this matter, but the motivation for prosecution is one of vindictiveness. Indeed, the
4 San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office recently issued a press release wherein they claim
5 they have a “record of only convicting the guilty.”1 Coupled with San Bernardino County District
6 Attorney Michael Ramos’ desire to be elected as Attorney General in 2018,2 the refusal to dismiss the
7 charges against Richards despite the exceedingly problematic case is indicative of ulterior motives and
8 vindictiveness.
9 I.
10 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
11 The San Bernardino County District Attorney charged William Richards with the August 10,
12 1993 murder of his wife, Pamela Richards. Richards’s first two full trials ended in mistrials with hung
13 juries. A third trial ended in a mistrial because the trial court recused itself during jury selection. In
14 Richards’s fourth trial, the jury announced it was deadlocked; it then received further instruction
15 concerning reasonable doubt, after which the jury returned a conviction of first degree murder. The
16 trial court sentenced Richards to 25 years to life.3
17 The case against Richards depended on the combination of five circumstantial pillars: a history
18 of a volatile relationship between Richards and Pamela, testimony that a bite mark on Pamela’s hand
19 matched Richards, the claim that there was no evidence of another person present at the crime scene,
20
21
22 1 Statement from District Attorney Ramos regarding formation of Conviction Review Unit
(April 7, 2016) <http://www.sbcountyda.org/Newsroom/PressReleases/2016/StatementfromDistrict
23 AttorneyMikeRamosregardingformationofConvictionReviewUnit.aspx> [as of June 17, 2016].
24
25 2 Mike Ramos for California Attorney General <http://www.joinmikeramos.com/> [as of June
17, 2016].
26
27
3 References to Richards’s jury trial transcripts will be designated as “Tr. C.T.” and “Tr. R.T.”
28 References to Richards’s post-conviction evidentiary hearing will be designated as “Hrg. C.T.” and
“Hrg. R.T.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
2
1 a blue fiber found lodged in a crack in Pamela’s fingernail which was consistent with fibers from
2 Richards’s shirt, and contested blood spatter evidence. Richards’s conviction was affirmed on appeal.
3 (People v. Richards (Aug. 17, 2000, E024365 [nonpub. opn.]).)
4 Throughout the trial and throughout the appeals, the victims’ family never thought Richards
5 committed the crime. Pamela’s sister told the court in this case: “I believe William Richards did not
6 kill or murder my sister.” (3 Tr. C.T. 858.) She went on to tell the court and the prosecutor: “[a]nd,
7 you know, my mother, my own parents, this is my mother’s daughter, my father, and they don’t think
8 Bill is guilty” and “I think you guys are taking the wrong person. And this is my belief, because I swear
9 if I didn’t think -- if I had any other thinking that Bill did it I wouldn't be here wasting my time . . .”
10 (6 Tr. R.T. 1974; see also Exhibit A, Letter from Pamela’s Sister to Richards.)
11 Richards then filed a habeas petition in the San Bernardino County Superior Court on
12 grounds that false evidence was introduced against him at trial and that new evidence undermined the
13 entire case of the prosecution and pointed unerringly to Richards’s innocence. (In re Richards (Aug.
14 10, 2009, SWHSS700444).) Specifically, Richards presented: (1) DNA evidence on the murder
15 weapon and underneath Pamela’s fingernail that did not match Richards or Pamela; (2) evidence that
16 the fiber in Pamela’s cracked fingernail was not present at the time of autopsy and was later planted
17 or got their via contamination; and (3) evidence that Richards did not match the bite mark on Pamela’s
18 hand. (Hrg. Aug. C.T. 14-18, 38-85.) After hearing evidence presented on the claims, the Honorable
19 Brian S. McCarville of this court granted the habeas petition on August 10, 2009. (Exhibit B, Judge
20 Brian S. McCarville’s Ruling on Habeas Petition.) Judge McCarville determined false bite mark
21 evidence had been introduced against Richards and that Richards had “established his burden of proof
22 to show that the evidence [] points unerringly to innocence.” (Exhibit B.)
23 On the People’s appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two reversed Judge
24 McCarville’s grant of the petition. (In re Richards (Nov. 9, 2010, E049135 [nonpub. opn. located at
25 2010 WL 4681260]).) The California Supreme Court granted review and, in a split vote of 4-3,
26 affirmed the reversal of the appellate court finding that Richards had not met the standard for new
27 evidence because the evidence of innocence was not legally “new” and/or did not “point unerringly
28 to innocence” and that an expert’s recantation of the bite mark evidence did not qualify as “false
__________________________________________________________________________________________
3
1 evidence” under the false evidence statute–Penal Code section 1473. (In re Richards (2012) 55
2 Cal.4th 948 [Richards].) An article in the annual California Lawyer magazine deemed that decision
3 as “the worst opinion of the year.”4
4 In response to the Richards decision, the California Legislature changed the false evidence law
5 by amending Penal Code section 1473.5 In relevant part, subdivision (e) was added to section 1473
6 and provided: “‘false evidence’ shall include opinions of experts that have either been repudiated by
7 the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that have been undermined by
8 later scientific research or technological advances.” (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e)(1).)
9 On January 7, 2015, after the change in the law and six years after Richards’s conviction had
10 initially been overturned by Judge McCarville, Richards petitioned the California Supreme Court for
11 relief from his conviction under the amendment to section 1473. (In re Richards (May 26, 2016,
12 S223651).) On May 26, 2016, the California Supreme Court in a unanimous vote of 7-0 reversed
13 Richards’s conviction on the basis that the People had presented false evidence at Richards’s trial
14 resulting in conviction. (In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291.) In doing so, the California Supreme
15 Court noted the bite mark evidence was material to the conviction and noted: “the case against
16 [Richards] was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, and much of that evidence was heavily
17 contested” and “the defense had a substantial response to much of the prosecution’s evidence against
18 [Richards].” (Id. at p. 17.) It should be noted that, in this fourth jury trial, the People do not intend
19 on presenting the bite mark evidence.
20 While the California Supreme Court habeas petition was pending, the California Department
21 of Corrections and Rehabilitation Board of Parole Hearings advanced Richards’s parole hearing date.
22 (Exhibit C, Petition to Advance Decision Form.) On March 29, 2016, the parole board found
23
24
4 Uelmen, G., New Balance at the California Supreme Court (Aug. 2013) California Lawyer.
25
26 5 Sen. Com. on Pub. Safety, Bill No. 1058 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.), p. 4 “The issue this bill
27 seeks to address was clearly depicted in the California Supreme Court case, In Re Richards, 55 Cal.4th
948 (2012).”]; see also Associated Press, California Man’s Murder Case Prompts New State Law (Feb.
28 15, 2015) Daily Mail <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2954460/California-mans-case-
prompts-new-law- expert-testimony.html#ixzz4BrDzTtwd> [as of June 16, 2016].)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
4
1 Richards suitable for parole. (Exhibit D, Excerpts from Parole Hearing, p. 106.)
2 II.
3 FACTS ADDUCED AT TRIAL6
4 A. [Richards]’s relationship with his wife.
5 [William Richards] and his wife, Pamela, lived on a remote property they owned in the Mojave
6 Desert in San Bernardino County. The plot had a small house and a camper parked nearby. They
7 used a generator, kept in a small, fenced shed, for electricity. To access their home, one had to ascend
8 a steep, sand-and-gravel driveway. The couple kept several dogs on the property to ward off intruders.
9 [Richards] and his wife had been having financial and marital difficulties, and both had sexual
10 relationships outside the marriage. At the time of her death Pamela had been having a sexual
11 relationship with Eugene Price, whom she had helped to recover from a helicopter accident. Pamela
12 planned to leave [Richards] and find an apartment with Price.
13 B. The night of August 10, 1993.
14 On the night of her death, August 10, 1993, [Richards] was working a night shift. Price
15 received a message from Pamela on his answering machine sometime between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m.
16 At approximately, 9:30 p.m., Price tried calling Pamela at the camper but received a busy signal. Price
17 continued to try to call Pamela, calling approximately every five minutes, but he continued to receive
18 a busy signal. Because of past problems with the telephone service in that area, Price contacted the
19 phone company to check the line. Price continued to call Pamela, but without success.
20 At approximately 11:55 p.m., Price telephoned Pamela again, but this time [Richards]
21 answered. He sounded stressed and agitated. When Price asked for Pamela, [Richards] said she was
22 dead — and he told Price that her head was bashed in and her eye was hanging out of its socket. Price
23 told [Richards] to call 911.
24 At 11:58 p.m., [Richards] called 911. In that call, [Richards] stated he had just come home
25 and discovered his wife was dead. He said he thought Pamela fell off the porch steps and hit her head.
26
27
6 The Statement of Facts is derived verbatim from the most recent California Supreme Court
28 opinion vacating Richards’s conviction with the exception of footnotes 7, 9, 10, and 11 which Richards
has added to the brief.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
5
1 [Richards] placed a second call to 911 at 12:06 a.m. In that call, [Richards] asked when
2 responders would arrive. He said that he thought that she had fallen, but that “things don’t look right
3 here at all,” that “there’s things moved,” and that they should send someone who could examine the
4 scene. The 911 operator assured [Richards] that dispatch would send someone who could examine
5 the scene and advised [Richards] not to touch anything. [Richards] responded that he had not touched
6 anything but the phone and the door and that he had rolled Pamela’s body over to see if she was all
7 right.
8 [Richards] placed a third call to 911 at 12:33 a.m. In that call, he again asked when responders
9 would arrive. He also stated that, when he went to start the generator, he observed blood and
10 Pamela’s pants in that area and saw there was blood inside the camper. He stated his belief that
11 Pamela had been attacked and killed near the generator because oil had been spilled there as well.
12 [Richards] expressed anger as to why responders had not yet arrived. The dispatcher repeatedly
13 advised [Richards] not to touch anything and suggested he go sit in his car. [Richards] said he had not
14 touched anything and that he would go sit with Pamela.
15 San Bernardino County Sheriff‘s Deputy Mark Nourse arrived at the scene shortly after 12:30
16 a.m. The sky was overcast and the property was dark, with no light source. Deputy Nourse used his
17 patrol vehicle lights and his flashlight to illuminate the scene.
18 [Richards] led Deputy Nourse to Pamela’s body; the couple’s dogs acted aggressively toward
19 Deputy Nourse as he approached. According to Deputy Nourse, it appeared that part of Pamela’s
20 skull had been gouged out by some kind of blunt object and that pieces of her skull were nearby. One
21 of her eyes was gouged out and an ear partially ripped off. Deputy Nourse could not detect a pulse.
22 The body was neither warm nor cold. Her arm was pliable. Her blood was still wet, bright red, and
23 puddled; it had not coagulated or soaked into the sandy soil. Based on his prior experience as a
24 trained emergency medical technician and as a first responder firefighter, Deputy Nourse believed she
25 had very recently died.7
26
27
28 7 Deputy Nourse’s qualifications have been called into questions since the time of Richards’s
trial. For example, Deputy Nourse testified that he worked as a paramedic in the Air Force. (1 Tr.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
6
1 [Richards] began discussing the crime scene with Deputy Nourse. He told the deputy that
2 Pamela was “stone cold dead” and that she must have been dead a long time because the battery in
3 the camper had run out. [Richards] pointed out a cinder block that he said was used to kill her and
4 stated there was also a stepping stone with blood on it. [Richards] gave his scenario concerning how
5 he thought the assault and killing took place, including that he thought the attack had begun near the
6 generator. According to Deputy Nourse, [Richards] also said: “It don’t matter any, all the evidence
7 that relates to this case I already touched and moved trying to figure out how this whole thing
8 happened.” Deputy Nourse described [Richards]’s demeanor as “very calm, cool, [and] collected,”
9 but occasionally [Richards] would fall to his knees crying, after which he would get back up and then
10 continue talking. To the deputy, it seemed as if [Richards] was speaking “like he had rehearsed or
11 was reading from a script.”
12 Deputy Nourse became suspicious of [Richards] and began surreptitiously recording their
13 conversation. During this recording, [Richards] explained that when he came home from work
14 around midnight he found his wife lying facedown on the ground with her head against a cinder block.
15 When he rolled her over in the dark, [Richards] said that his fingers went into the hole in her head.
16 [Richards] told Deputy Nourse that he initially thought that she had fallen and hit her head on the
17 cinder block, but that he found blood on pillows inside the camper. [Richards] said that “things ain’t
18 right here” and expressed anger that Pamela’s pants were lying next to the generator. He explained
19 that Pamela “had to squeeze into those jeans” that morning because she had gained weight and that
20 they would not have come off easily, adding, “trust me.” [Richards] stated that her underpants were
21 inside the camper. He also stated that Pamela had placed the vacuum cleaner inside the camper and
22 theorized that she intended to start the generator so she could vacuum but was assaulted near the
23 generator instead. [Richards] showed Deputy Nourse a spilled oil bottle the couple usually used to
24 fill the generator before starting it. He stated that he knew there was “blood on rocks up against the
25 hill,” and that there was a bloodstained paving stone that had been thrown “over the side of the hill.”
26
27 R.T. 65; 4 Tr. R.T. 629-631, 685; 8 Tr. R.T. 1967.) However, according to military records, Deputy
Nourse had one week of self and buddy care in the Air Force, but no EMT training. (8 Tr. R.T. 1959-
28 1960) And, the Air Force has confirmed that Deputy Nourse was never, in fact, in the Air Force.
(Exhibit E, Letter from Department of the Air Force.)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
7
1 [Richards] remarked that his dogs had failed to protect his wife from her killer. He did not report
2 anything missing from the premises. And he surmised that the killer had used a cinder block to kill
3 Pamela.
4 Deputy Nourse directed [Richards] to stay away from the crime scene while they waited for
5 the homicide team to arrive. The homicide detectives did not arrive until 3:15 a.m. Because of the
6 darkness, they decided not to process the crime scene until dawn. They tried but were unable to
7 secure the couple’s dogs before leaving.
8 C. The crime scene.
9 Detective Norman Parent, Criminalist Dan Gregonis, and Forensic Specialist Valerie Seleska
10 began examining the crime scene at 6:00 a.m.
11 Approximately 25 feet away from Pamela’s body, near the small shed for the generator, there
12 were bloodstains on the ground, on a gasoline container, and a bloodied rock, along with one of
13 Pamela’s shoes. One of Pamela’s broken fingernails was also found in this area. In front of the
14 generator was Pamela’s other shoe, her jeans, and a spilled bottle of oil. There was also blood spatter
15 on the fencing surrounding the shed for the generator.
16 The team found Pamela’s body lying on its back, covered with a sleeping bag, on the ground
17 between the camper and the house’s porch. Her right arm lay upon some heavy, metal-grate fencing
18 material that lay flattened on the ground. She was naked from the waist down, except for socks. Her
19 tank top had numerous bloodstains and blood spatter. Her head was crushed, an eye was hanging out,
20 and a large pool of blood was beside her. The dogs had partially buried her head during the night.
21 A large, bloody cinder block was near her body and a bloody 12-by-12-inch stepping stone was
22 a little further away on the edge of a slope. Based on the blood on them and their proximity to the
23 body, Detective Parent believed that both the cinder block and stepping stone had been used to smash
24 Pamela’s head.
25 The porch nearby had signs of blood spatter on it, as did the side and top of a table cart that
26 was on the other side of her body. Stepping stones leading from the porch to the camper also had
27 obvious blood spatter. The bottom of the entryway into the camper had blood smeared on it.
28 Inside the camper was a couch with pillows stacked on one end. The pillows had bloodstains
__________________________________________________________________________________________
8
1 on them as well as dirt and small pebbles. Detective Parent believed that Pamela had already been
2 bleeding outside before she bled on the pillows in the camper. There was also a blood smear on a
3 telephone hanging on a wall. A vacuum cleaner stood upright in the middle of the floor, near her
4 underpants, and was plugged in.
5 Pamela’s Suzuki Samurai was parked in front of the camper. On the passenger seat was
6 Pamela’s purse, and it contained a letter signed and dated by [Richards] nearly one month earlier in
7 which [Richards] proposed a division of their assets and personal property.
8 Detective Parent examined the area for tire tracks and was able to account for tracks left by the
9 patrol vehicles, [Richards]’s truck, and Pamela’s Suzuki. There was no evidence of any other tire tread
10 marks. He also examined the area for shoe prints. He found three prints consistent with Pamela’s
11 shoes, and one print consistent with [Richards]’s shoes, which were very worn, with little tread. Other
12 than these and the prints left by the officers, there were no other shoe prints. However, on several
13 parts of the property, the soil was generally hard packed and not very conducive to retaining prints.
14 D. Defendant’s interviews.
15 Detective Tom Bradford interviewed [Richards] for several hours on August 11, 16, and 30,
16 and September 3, 1993. [Richards]’s statements in those interviews were generally consistent with what
17 he had told Deputy Nourse at the crime scene. He also stated that he had been home approximately
18 five to 10 minutes before Eugene Price called his home and [Richards] told him that Pamela was dead.
19 He explained that he and Pamela kept several guns on their property and that Pamela knew how to
20 use them. [Richards] admitted that he knew Pamela was having sexual encounters with Price because
21 she would tell him about them, which bothered him. He also admitted that he thought Pamela was
22 going to leave him.
23 E. Autopsy evidence.
24 Dr. Frank Sheridan, chief medical examiner for the Coroner’s Office of San Bernardino
25 County, performed the autopsy on Pamela’s body. He determined that Pamela had been strangled,
26 first unsuccessfully by ligature, and then manually. According to Dr. Sheridan, the strangulation was
27 sufficient in itself to cause her death. In addition, the left side of her skull was smashed, which crushed
28 her brain. According to Dr. Sheridan, this injury was also sufficient to cause her death. He believed
__________________________________________________________________________________________
9
1 that the strangulation came first and that Pamela was dead or nearly dead when the blunt force was
2 inflicted because there was very little bleeding or bruising in the area of her skull injury.
3 Pamela’s body had several defensive wounds, and there was bruising across her body, and
4 lacerations and abrasions to her face. There were no signs of sexual assault. However, based on the
5 significant blood spatter on her jeans and the lack of spatter on her bare legs, it appeared that someone
6 had removed her pants after the blunt force was applied to her head.
7 Dr. Sheridan examined the lividity on the body. Lividity is the deep red-purple discoloration
8 seen on a body after death, which is created when the heart stops beating and the blood settles down
9 into the lowest parts of the body by way of gravity. Lividity becomes fixed on the body after six to 10
10 hours. According to Dr. Sheridan, if Pamela had died facedown, and stayed in that position for a few
11 hours, but was later turned on her back, he would expect that the blood would drain toward her back,
12 showing lividity there instead. At the crime scene, lividity was present on Pamela’s back, consistent
13 with the body’s having lain on its back for several hours. However, the lividity was very weak,
14 indicating she had lost a lot of blood as a result of her injuries.
15 Dr. Sheridan could give no opinion as to the time of death, and no liver temperature was taken
16 when the officers first arrived at the crime scene. At the time, it was not standard practice for the
17 coroner’s office to take a body’s liver temperature at the crime scene in order to estimate the time of
18 death.
19 F. [Richards]’s clothing.
20 Detectives collected the clothing that [Richards] wore on the night of Pamela’s death. They
21 also took pictures of his body and his arms and hands, none of which showed any fresh wounds,
22 injuries, or other visible marks.
23 Criminalist Gregonis examined [Richards]’s cotton shirt, jeans, and shoes for blood spatter.
24 He found no blood spatter on [Richards]’s shirt, but found blood transfer stains on the right collar and
25 sleeve, consistent with [Richards]’s account of cradling his wife’s head at the crime scene. Based on
26 his experiments with a dummy head, however, Gregonis testified that he would have expected to see
27 more blood transferred to [Richards]’s shirt as a result of cradling a bloodied head, as well as blood
28 dripped onto [Richards]’s jeans, but the jeans contained no such drip patterns. [Richards]’s jeans had
__________________________________________________________________________________________
10
1 three small bloodstains that were consistent with Pamela’s blood and appeared to Gregonis to have
2 been deposited as the result of blood spatter.8 They were present in the right knee area, the right
3 mid-thigh area, and to the left of the zipper, on the left leg. Blood consistent with Pamela’s was found
4 on both of [Richards]’s shoes, with blood on the left shoe’s toe area and blood spatter on the lacing
5 of the right shoe.
6 Although he initially expected to find much more blood on [Richards]’s clothing, Gregonis
7 surmised that the cinder block may have shielded [Richards] from significant blood spatter due to its
8 size.9
9 G. Other forensic evidence.
10 During the autopsy, Dr. Sheridan severed some of Pamela’s fingertips from her body for later
11 testing. Criminalist Gregonis later examined the severed fingertips under a microscope and noticed
12 blue cotton fibers wedged deep in a crack of a broken fingernail on one of the fingertips. The
13 microscope was equipped with a video recording device, and Gregonis recorded a video of his
14 extraction of the fibers from the fingernail. A matching broken fragment apparently torn from the
15 same fingernail was found on the ground at the crime scene, suggesting that the fingernail broke during
16 Pamela’s struggle with her assailant.
17 Gregonis examined the blue cotton shirt [Richards] wore on the night of the killing, and he
18 concluded that its blue fibers were indistinguishable from the fibers removed from the crack in
19 Pamela’s broken fingernail. Gregonis, however, also acknowledged that cotton fiber is probably the
20 most common fiber in the world, that blue cotton is common, and that there was nothing particularly
21 unique about [Richards]’s blue cotton work shirt.
22
23
8 There were other small bloodstains on petitioner’s jeans, but they were either consistent with
24 petitioner’s blood or were too small to return any DNA tests results.
25
26 9 The scientific reliability of blood spatter testimony evidence has come under attack. (See
U.S. Dept. Of Justice, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, p. 178
27 [“Scientific studies support some aspects of bloodstain pattern analysis. One can tell, for example, if
the blood spattered quickly or slowly, but some experts extrapolate far beyond what can be
28
supported.”].)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
11
1 Gregonis examined both the bloody cinder block and the bloody stone. The cinder block had
2 hairs and a significant amount of blood spatter and areas of saturated blood on it, indicating that it was
3 used to smash Pamela’s head. Based on the amount of blood also present on the stone, Gregonis
4 believed that it too could have been dropped on or thrown at Pamela’s head.
5 H. Bite mark evidence.
6 Specialist Valerie Seleska, who photographed the crime scene, also took photographs of
7 Pamela’s autopsy. She took a photograph of a crescent-shaped lesion on Pamela’s right hand. Seleska
8 acknowledged that if a body exhibited signs of a bite mark, it was standard practice to swab the
9 suspected bite mark to collect any saliva. During the autopsy, she did not see anyone take a swab of
10 the lesion on Pamela’s hand.
11 Ten days before [Richards]’s final jury trial began in 1997, the San Bernardino County District
12 Attorney’s Office contacted Dr. Norman Sperber, a dentist and forensic odontologist, to examine the
13 photograph taken by Seleska at Pamela’s autopsy. Dr. Sperber testified that he had over 40 years of
14 experience in dentistry. He explained that he was the chief forensic dentist for two counties—San
15 Diego and Imperial. Dr. Sperber said that he was one of 100 people in the country certified in
16 forensic odontologly by the American Board of Forensic Odontology. He had received a
17 congressional appointment to set up a national system for identifying persons through dental records.
18 Dr. Sperber had previously qualified as a forensic odontologist in 26 states in more than 100 cases,
19 more than 80 of which involved bite mark evidence. He also described testifying as a forensic
20 odontolgist in the Jeffrey Dahmer case and in the Ted Bundy case, in which he matched a bite mark
21 on one of the victims to Bundy.
22 As described hereafter, in explaining his conclusion that the photograph revealed that the
23 lesion on Pamela’s hand was consistent with [Richards]’s teeth, Dr. Sperber’s testimony was composed
24 of a series of opinions and factual observations that integrated various exhibits.
25 First, Dr. Sperber opined that the lesion on Pamela’s hand was a bite mark. Second, he
26 believed that the bite mark was of human origin. Third, Dr. Sperber testified that, based on the
27 overall shape of the human bite mark, it was made from the lower teeth of the human jaw. Fourth,
28 he believed that the human bite mark showed an abnormality — the presence of only one of the two
__________________________________________________________________________________________
12
1 canine teeth of the lower jaw. Fifth, he made a casting of [Richards]’s teeth, took a photograph of the
2 casting of [Richards]’s lower jaw, enlarged the photograph of the victim’s bite mark to match the
3 proportions of the photo of the lower jaw, drew a tracing of [Richards]’s teeth on a transparency, and
4 then overlaid that transparency over the enlarged photo of the bite mark. Dr. Sperber then stated that
5 the overlaid transparency made a “pretty good alignment” with the photo of the bite mark.
6 In addition to his exhibits, Dr. Sperber explained why he believed [Richards]’s lower teeth
7 were consistent with the lesion on Pamela’s hand. According to Dr. Sperber, because one of
8 [Richards]’s canine teeth was “undererupted” and crooked, it did not protrude as much as the other
9 teeth on the jaw line, and this circumstance could account for the missing canine mark on Pamela’s
10 hand. He described the missing tooth mark as a “common sense expectation” or “common sense
11 understanding” based on [Richards]’s abnormal canine tooth. He further noted that whoever made
12 the bite mark had something wrong with one of his canine teeth, as did [Richards]. Dr. Sperber also
13 noted that [Richards]’s lower teeth were in an asymmetrical curve, with three teeth lined up straight,
14 whereas a normal jaw would exhibit greater curvature of those teeth. He believed that characteristic
15 was another factor showing a match with the bite mark photo.
16 Dr. Sperber explained that there were no studies in forensic odontology regarding the statistical
17 rarity of an under-erupted canine tooth. When asked, based on his personal experience as a dentist,
18 how often Dr. Sperber had observed an under-erupted canine tooth in his patients, he explained that
19 the under-eruption plus the asymmetry of [Richards]’s teeth made [Richards]’s teeth “even more
20 unusual” and that he would expect “one or two or less” out of 100 people to have such features.
21 Dr. Sperber further explained that he uses four categories to assess bite mark evidence in order
22 of increasing confidence of a match: “not consistent,” “consistent,” “probable,” and “reasonable doubt
23 certainty.” Dr. Sperber explained that the angular distortion of the photo of Pamela’s lesion prevented
24 his ability to classify his match with any degree of certainty greater than “consistent,” meaning that
25 defendant could have left the lesion and could not be ruled out.
26 I. Other evidence.
27 The time clock at [Richards]’s work indicated that he had left there at 11:03 p.m. on the night
28 of the killing. A few weeks after the killing, a sheriff’s investigator went to [Richards]’s place of
__________________________________________________________________________________________
13
1 employment. The investigator left [Richards]’s workplace at 11:03 p.m., walked to his car in the
2 parking lot, and then left the lot at 11:06 p.m. Although the posted speed limit was 55 miles per hour,
3 the investigator that night was able to drive 75 miles per hour with the flow of traffic for most of the
4 trip to [Richards]’s property. Forty-one minutes later, he arrived at [Richards]’s residence at 11:47
5 p.m.
6 J. Defense evidence.
7 Wayne Kozica, Pamela’s brother, telephoned and spoke with her at approximately 7:15 to
8 7:30 p.m. on the night of her death, and she seemed normal at that time. Pamela had told Kozica
9 that she and [Richards] had been arguing, and Kozica offered to let her stay with him in San Diego.
10 Arthur Quas testified that he called [Richards]’s residence but no one answered. According
11 to Quas, he called just before 10:00 p.m. and the phone rang a few times followed by clicks and then
12 a dial tone. He called again but the phone rang with no response. Quas was aware that [Richards] and
13 Pamela were in an open relationship and would have sexual affairs outside the relationship.
14 On three occasions, Christian Filipiak, a defense investigator, left the parking lot of [Richards]’s
15 place of employment at 11:06 p.m. and drove, at different speeds, the same route as [Richards] did
16 on the night of Pamela’s death. Driving with the cruise control set at 60, 65, and 70 miles per hour,
17 it took Filipiak 52 minutes, 48 minutes, and 44 minutes, respectively, to arrive at the residence. The
18 distance was 44.8 miles.
19 Griffith Thomas, a physician specializing in pathology and forensic pathology, explained that
20 time of death is a complex determination. Factors include rigor mortis, lividity, core body
21 temperature, and environmental conditions. Depending on the ambient temperature, a dead body
22 cools at a rate of 1.5 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit per hour. According to Thomas, the closer to the time
23 of death observations are made, the more accurate the findings will be. Thomas also stated that it was
24 “outrageously wrong” for the investigation team to have waited till the next morning to dispatch a
25 coroner’s investigator to examine Pamela’s body. As a result, he explained, it cannot be said when
26 death occurred in this case. Thomas also believed that several of the wounds and bruises on Pamela’s
27 body had been inflicted several hours before her death because of the advanced coloring of the
28 contusions, which normally takes significant time to develop.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
14
1 Dr. Gregory S. Golden, a dentist and chief odontologist for San Bernardino County, compared
2 his own models of [Richards]’s teeth with an enlarged, life-sized photograph similar to the autopsy
3 photograph used by Dr. Sperber. Dr. Golden could not eliminate [Richards] as a suspect, but then
4 did further studies, by randomly using dental models of patients he had treated in the past. Out of 15
5 different dental models of patients he had treated, Dr. Golden found five dental models whose teeth
6 appeared to match the lesion on the photograph. Accordingly, Dr. Golden believed that the bite mark
7 evidence should be disregarded because of the generic nature of the bite and the low quality of the
8 photograph. On crossexamination, however, Dr. Golden also stated that [Richards]’s under-erupted,
9 displaced canine was “unique” and that “there is a very low probability that you are going to find an
10 individual with a tooth in that position in the same orientation down to maybe two percent of the
11 population, if that.”
12 Dean Gialamas, senior criminalist with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, testified
13 regarding his examination of the bloodstains on [Richards]’s clothes. Gialamas explained that he had
14 been trained in blood spatter interpretation and has presented papers on the subject. He had received
15 awards from regional and international associations for his achievements in criminalistics. Although
16 he testifies for the prosecution about 75 percent of the time, Gialamas stated that he had been
17 appointed to examine the evidence for the defense in the present case.
18 Gialamas examined the photographs of the crime scene with special attention to the blood
19 spatter around Pamela’s body, noting that the blood had radiated out in numerous directions. He
20 stated that he would have expected to see multiple blood patterns on the person who dropped the
21 cinder block on Pamela’s head. In his assessment, Pamela’s head suffered at least three blows, based
22 on her wounds and the fact that she had to have sustained an open, bleeding wound for the spattering
23 to be generated.
24 Gialamas conducted and videotaped multiple experiments in which he dropped a cinder block
25 on a sponge shaped into a dummy head and soaked with human blood. The blood spatter invariably
26 came back toward him in the lower leg to thigh area, despite the cinder block’s shielding of some of
27 the spatter. In another experiment, the blood spatter reached as high as his shirt collar. Although he
28 was wearing gloves, the rough edges of the cinder block cut his hand. Gialamas also conducted
__________________________________________________________________________________________
15
1 experiments using bloodied hair being dragged across the laces of a canvas shoe like the one
2 [Richards] wore the night of Pamela’s death. The contact transfer of blood from the hair to the shoe
3 created a pattern similar to those found on the laces of [Richards]’s right shoe, creating a pattern that
4 looked very similar to blood spatter. Gialamas could not rule out either the transfer of blood from
5 hair or blood spatter as the origin of the bloodstains found on the laces of [Richards]’s right shoe but
6 found it odd that the dots of spatter on [Richards]’s shoe lined up in a straight row, as opposed to
7 being randomly deposited. Gialamas testified that the bloodstains found on the toe portion of
8 [Richards]’s left shoe had no characteristics of spatter, but was simply a contact type transfer stain.
9 Gialamas further believed that the blood pattern on the shoes were inconsistent with the extensive
10 spattering that occurred in his cinder block experiments.
11 Gialamas also examined the three areas of [Richards]’s jeans that Gregonis testified had signs
12 of blood spatter. Gialamas concluded the bloodstains on the right knee area were transfer stains
13 consistent with the wearer’s kneeling on some kind of blood source, perhaps bloody gravel, because
14 the stains in that area varied in size, shape, and intensity. Regarding the bloodstain found on the right
15 upper thigh, Giamalas testified that the stain looked more like a transfer stain, but could not rule out
16 that it was “an oddball fly-off medium energy spatter.” Regarding the bloodstains to the left of the
17 zipper, Gialamas believed they were transfer stains because the stains went along the rise of three
18 natural creases on that area of the pants, which would mimic spatter stains once flattened out. But he
19 also could not rule out that they were created by spatter because it was remotely possible that the three
20 drops of spatter precisely landed on the crease areas.
21 Gialamas examined [Richards]’s shirt and found no evidence of blood spatter. In his opinion,
22 the evidence on [Richards]’s shirt was more consistent with the wearer’s cradling a bloodied head. He
23 also testified that blue cotton is not uncommon, and that cotton is “the most ubiquitous fiber we have.”
24 In sum, Gialamas concluded: “Given the lack of spatter on [[Richards]’s] clothing, no, I don’t think
25 that this clothing is consistent with this individual being the perpetrator.”
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
__________________________________________________________________________________________
16
1 III.
2 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS OF THE STRENGTH OF
THE PEOPLE’S CASE.
3
The case against [Richards] was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, and much of that
4
evidence was heavily contested.
5
Assuming that, like the prosecution’s investigator, [Richards] was able to drive 20 miles per
6
hour over the speed limit on the night of the killing, [Richards] would have had anywhere from only
7
eight to 11 minutes to kill the victim, depending on whether Eugene Price’s phone call or [Richards]’s
8
first call to 911 is used as the time reference for when the attack on Pamela was completed. If
9
[Richards] drove 10 miles per hour over the speed limit on his way home that night, then he would
10
have had anywhere from only one to four minutes to kill the victim. According to the county’s chief
11
medical examiner, Dr. Sheridan, death by strangulation alone can take anywhere from two and a half
12
to three minutes.10
13
Although some parts of the property contained looser soil that was amenable to shoe prints,
14
the fact that shoe prints of only the victim and [Richards] were found at the crime scene is not
15
remarkable, given that some of the landscape was generally not conducive to creating shoe prints. In
16
17
18
19 10 It should be noted that this time estimate did not factor in the fact that Richards stopped
at a gas station after work and loaded up a cooler in the back of his truck with ice as can be depicted
20 by the photo below, making it impossible for Richards to have had time to commit this crime:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
__________________________________________________________________________________________
17
1 fact, only four shoe prints were found at the crime scene, with three of them belonging to Pamela —
2 despite evidence that she was chased around the crime area.
3 [Richards]’s familiarity with the crime scene and with what items were used to strike Pamela
4 may appear suspicious in the abstract, but he had had to wait for more than a half-hour before Deputy
5 Nourse arrived. It is not unreasonable to conclude that [Richards], while waiting for the police to
6 arrive, explored the area to determine how his wife died. Moreover, when Detective Parent examined
7 the crime scene, it was readily apparent to him that both the cinder block and stone had been used
8 to hit Pamela in the head because those items were covered with blood and blood spatter. In fact, he
9 agreed that it did not take a “rocket scientist” for someone to make such a conclusion.
10 The time of death was a significant issue at trial. It is undisputed that there was no evidence
11 definitively establishing that point. But evidence suggested that Pamela stopped answering her phone
12 hours before [Richards] arrived.11 Although Deputy Nourse, upon examining Pamela’s body, believed
13 she had very recently died because the body still had wet puddled blood around it and no rigor mortis,
14 he described her body as neither warm nor cold. Both the prosecution and defense forensic
15 pathologists agreed that, after death, the body cools at a rate of 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees Fahrenheit
16
17
11 It should be noted that there was a bag of dirty laundry in the back of Pamela’s car, as well
18 as her sunglasses and purse in the front seat, indicating she was going into town to do laundry that day,
but never made it. (4 Tr. R.T. 518; 8 Tr. R.T. 1868-1869.) Further, witness Pedro Galvin, told
19 investigators that there was a red Mazda with two people who drove up to the couple’s property
around 7:00 p.m. that evening of the murder and that he heard dogs barking about 10:00 p.m., more
20
than an hour before Richards arrived home. (8 Tr. R.T. 1961.)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
__________________________________________________________________________________________
18
1 per hour with some variance depending on the environmental conditions, the weight of the body, and
2 the circumstances leading to death. Thus, if Pamela had died an hour before [Richards] arrived,
3 Deputy Nourse’s observation that her body was neither warm nor cold might be consistent with that
4 hypothesis because he arrived less than an hour after [Richards] did. The fact that there were no
5 visible, fresh injuries on [Richards]’s face, arms, and hands on the night of the killing was also unusual.
6 The scene of the crime established that Pamela fought her attacker. Two of her fingernails were torn
7 off during the attack. Her body had numerous pre-mortem bruises and lacerations. There was
8 evidence she was assaulted outside first and then brought inside the camper where she bled on pillows.
9 Pamela was strangled first by ligature and then manually. The presence of blood in multiple locations
10 further suggested that Pamela tried to fight off and flee her attacker. However, [Richards]’s body
11 showed no evidence of a recent physical altercation.
12 Even more unusual was the evidence of blood on [Richards]’s clothing. The few stains that
13 the prosecution’s expert identified as blood spatter on [Richards]’s shoes and jeans were millimeter
14 sized. But the area around Pamela’s body exhibited a radial spray of significant blood spatter, much
15 of which was centimeter sized. More important, the defense expert provided evidence that the alleged
16 blood spatter on [Richards]’s jeans and shoes could have been the result of transfer scenarios that were
17 consistent with [Richards]’s claim that he had cradled Pamela’s head at the scene. The expert believed
18 the assailant’s clothes would have displayed far more blood spatter than was found on the clothing
19 [Richards] wore on the night of the killing. As a result, the defense expert believed that [Richards]’s
20 clothing was not consistent with his being the perpetrator.
21 Accordingly, with the exception of the bite mark evidence, the defense had a substantial
22 response to much of the prosecution’s evidence against [Richards].
23 IV.
24 EVIDENCE DISCOVERED POST-CONVICTION
25 Post-conviction, Richards presented evidence to a judge of this court relating to three issues.
26 First, Richards presented DNA evidence pointing to a person other than Richards as having murdered
27 Pamela. Second, Richards presented expert testimony indicating that Richards could not have been
28 responsible for bite mark attributed to the killer. That testimony included a recant by the
__________________________________________________________________________________________
19
1 prosecution’s dental expert. Finally, Richards presented photographic evidence indicating that the
2 fibers in Pamela’s fingernail, allegedly lodged during a struggle with her assailant, were not present until
3 after her fingers were severed from her body at the autopsy.
4 A. DNA Evidence.
5 1. Mitochondrial DNA from a hair found under Pamela’s fingernail.
6 A single hair, measuring two centimeters (equal to .787 inches), from an unknown person, was
7 recovered from amongst blood and debris under one of the fingernails of Pamela’s right hand. In
8 2006, mitochondrial DNA testing revealed this hair did not match the DNA of either Pamela or
9 Richards. Instead, the hair belonged to an unknown third party. (2 Aug. Hrg. CT. 255-602; 2 Aug.
10
Hrg. C.T. 262-267], admitted by stipulation [2 Hrg. R.T. 248; 4 Hrg. C.T. 991].)
11
Dr. Patricia Zajac, a consulting criminalist, who has qualified as an expert in approximately 500
12
cases, disagreed with the prosecution’s belief that the hair was likely historical (i.e., present prior to the
13
murder). (2 Hrg. R.T. 305, 310.) Instead, it was more likely the lodged hair was the product of the
14
attack. (2 Hrg. R.T. 316.) The People’s own expert, criminalist Gregonis testified that he could not
15
16 say whether the hair was historical or not. (2 Hrg. R.T. 409.) In fact, Gregonis admitted that the hair’s
17 location under the nail was relevant and that it was more likely that a woman working as a waitress
18 would be more fastidious in her grooming and cleanliness. (2 Hrg. R.T. 428-29.)
19 2. DNA from the Murder Weapon.

20 At trial, the People, though the testimony of Gregonis and in argument, repeatedly took the
21 position that a twelve-by-twelve-by-two-inch stepping stone found north of Pamela was one of the
22 weapons used to murder her. The stone was labeled item 25 at the scene, later identified as A-18, and
23
marked as Exhibit Number 139 for identification purposes at trial. (2 Tr. R.T. 193, 246.) It was the
24
People’s theory of the case that both the cinder block and this stepping stone were murder weapons.
25
(1 Tr. R.T. 54; 5 Tr. R.T. 975, 999, 1000, 1079.)
26
In 2006, Item A-18 was tested by the Department of Justice. STR DNA testing conclusively
27
established that two of three areas tested for DNA (areas “f” and “c”) contained a mixture of the
28
__________________________________________________________________________________________
20
1 victim’s DNA and male DNA. (Prosecution’s Second Amended Return [3 Hrg. C.T. 698-99, 733-35].)
2 Male DNA contributed as much as one-tenth of the DNA in the area near “f” and one-sixth of the
3 DNA in area “c.” (2 Aug. Hrg. C.T. 290-91, 302], admitted by stipulation [2 Hrg. R.T. 248; 4 Hrg.
4 C.T. 991].) Significantly, the male DNA did not belong to Richards. (Prosecution’s Second Amended
5
Return [3 Hrg. C.T. 698, 699, 733-35].) The People’s expert, Gregonis, agrees that the ratios of
6
Pamela’s DNA and the unknown DNA was consistent with the theory that the unknown male DNA
7
was deposited by the perpetrator. (2 Hrg. R.T. 439-40.) Most significantly, Gregonis acknowledges
8
that DNA testing on the stepping stone revealed that DNA not belonging to Richards was found
9
exactly where Gregonis predicted the killer’s DNA would be found. (2 Hrg. R.T. 438.)
10
11 B. New Developments in Bite Mark Evidence.
12 Post conviction, at Richards’s request, Dr. Sperber and Dr. Golden reexamined the photo of
13 the crescent shaped injury on Pamela’s hand. This photo was also examined by experts Dr. Raymond
14 Johansen and Dr. C. Michael Bowers. In 2006 and 2007, all of the experts were also provided with
15 additional photographs of the crime scene and other crescent shaped injuries on Pamela’s body.
16 1. Dr. Norman Sperber’s declaration and testimony.
17 At the request of Richards, Dr. Sperber reviewed all evidence relevant to the bite mark analysis
18
and stated that he would not testify now as he did in 1997. (5 Hrg. C.T. 1208.) Dr. Sperber testified
19
that he never should have provided an estimate regarding the percentage of the population that had
20
the dentition abnormality he had identified in Richards, and he stated the statistic he provided was
21
scientifically inaccurate. (1 Hrg. R.T. 74; 5 Hrg. C.T. 1207.) At the time of trial, he was not aware of
22
any studies which would have provided statistical support for his testimony. (1 Hrg. R.T. 74.) He also
23
24 testified that the American Board of Forensic Odontology now finds such testimony to be
25 inappropriate in the absence of any scientific studies. (1 Hrg. R.T. 74.) Additionally, Dr. Sperber
26 admitted he made his determinations about the “bite mark” and formed his opinions and testified at
27 the 1997 trial based on a single distorted picture. (5 Hrg. C.T. 1208.)
28 Dr. Sperber also acknowledged that he never attempted to use the mold of Richards’s teeth
__________________________________________________________________________________________
21
1 to determine if it would make a “bite registration” or “dental impression.” (1 Hrg. R.T. 90. See also,
2 1 Hrg. R.T. 80.) Instead, his trial testimony was based solely on his visual observation: “Because I had
3 basically eyeballed this case and I saw one tooth that was shorter than the others. I saw a space in that
4 collection of red lesion . . .” (1 Hrg. R.T. 90; see also 1 Hrg. R.T. 80.)
5
After review of all relevant evidence and with the benefit of added experience, contrary to his
6
trial testimony that the lesion was consistent with Richards’s dentition, Dr. Sperber now has “no degree
7
of certainty” that Richards’s teeth could have caused the lesion. (1 Hrg. R.T. 81; 5 Hrg. C.T. 1208.)
8
In the words of Dr. Sperber, “My opinion today is that [Richards’] teeth, as we have seen, are not
9
consistent with the lesion on the hand.” (1 Hrg. R.T. 91.) “Nonconsistent means you don’t see similar
10
11 patterns. I have essentially ruled [Richards] out.” (1 Hrg. R.T. 91.)
12 2. Dr. Gregory Golden’s declaration and testimony.
13 In 2007, Dr. Golden used Adobe Photoshop to correct the angular distortion visible in the
14 photograph of the crescent shaped injury to Pamela’s hand. (1 Hrg. R.T. 97-98.) Dr. Golden testified
15 that, with advances in technology, he has been able to do a more accurate analysis and, based on that
16 analysis, Richards’s “dental signature does not line up as well with the injury as it did in the distortion
17 [sic] injury.” Therefore, he excludes Richards as the suspected biter. (1 Hrg. R.T. 100; 5 Hrg. C.T.
18
1218.)
19
3. Report and testimony from Dr. C. Michael Bowers.
20
Dr. Bowers, like the other experts, testified that the photograph of Pamela’s hand, which was
21
used at Richards’s trial, was distorted. (2 Hrg. R.T. 212.) Dr. Bowers testified he created a corrected
22
version of the photograph using Adobe Photoshop. (2 Hrg. R.T. 216.) The new methods used by Dr.
23
24 Bowers are considerably more precise than the visual methods available in 1997 and demonstrated
25 numerous areas of discrepancy between Richards’s lower arch teeth and the bite mark. (2 Hrg. R.T.
26 218, 232, 234, 246.)
27 Dr. Bowers testified he took measurements of the bruise and of Richards’s dentition. (2 Hrg.
28 R.T. 218.) For example, he measured the bruise as 24 millimeters, yet Richards’s lower teeth were 33
__________________________________________________________________________________________
22
1 millimeters. Thus, the bruise was too small to have been made by Richards. (2 Hrg. R.T. 218.)
2 Additionally, when superimposing the digital exemplar of Richards’s bottom teeth onto the digitally
3 enhanced photograph of the bite mark, three of Richards’s teeth matched and three did not. (2 Hrg.
4 R.T. 232, 234.) The three teeth that did not match were in fact complete mismatches, and thus Dr.
5
Bowers eliminated Richards as the possible biter. (2 Hrg. R.T. 235-37.)
6
Dr. Bowers also testified to making two Styrofoam impressions from the plaster mold of
7
Richards’s teeth. (2 Hrg. R.T. 224.) At trial, Dr. Sperber had testified that tooth 27 would not have
8
come in contact with the skin because the higher teeth would have acted as “barriers.” (6 Hrg. R.T.
9
1207, 1209.) However, when Dr. Bowers used the mold of Richards’s teeth to make impressions in
10
11 Styrofoam, tooth 27 did leave marks. (2 Hrg. R.T.225-26, 238; Exh’s. 29 and 39.)
12 4. Report and testimony from Dr. Raymond Johansen.
13 Dr. Johansen testified at Richards’s evidentiary hearing that he is the author of a book on the
14 use of digital analysis of bite mark evidence using Adobe Photoshop, published in 2000. (1 Hrg. R.T.
15 117.) Dr. Johansen testified that there was some distortion in the photograph of Pamela’s hand. (1
16 Hrg. R.T. 130; 5 Hrg. C.T. 1225-32.) Using Adobe Photoshop, Dr. Johansen created a version of the
17 photograph which corrected the distortion contained in the original photograph. (1 Hrg. R.T. 139; 5
18
Hrg. C.T. 1237.) He also created a corrected photo with an outline of Richards’s upper teeth. (1 Hrg.
19
R.T. 140-42; 5 Hrg. C.T. 1239.) Dr. Johansen used the upper arch because it was “more consistent
20
with the size and shape of the injury pattern.” (1 Hrg. R.T.178.) According to Dr. Johansen, there were
21
marks on Pamela’s hand which were outside the semi-circular dentition area of Richards’s teeth. (1
22
Hrg. R.T. 143.)
23
24 C. New Revelations about the Blue Tuft of Fibers.
25 At the autopsy, investigators took several photos of Pamela’s right hand. (See, e.g., Exh’s. 19,
26 45, 46, 50 and 54.) After the autopsy, the tips of Pamela’s index and middle fingers were severed and
27 delivered to the Sheriff’s Department for a forensic examination. (2 Hrg. R.T. 253, 256, 259.) At
28 Richards’s request, Dr. Bowers made high resolution scans of the original photos. (2 Hrg. R.T. 249.)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
23
1 Significantly, no blue fibers appear in the photo o Pamela’s fingernail before it was severed from her
2 body. (2 Hrg. R.T. 251, 255.)
3 Dr. Bowers also produced a still photograph from a video which Gregonis had made after he
4 allegedly found a blue fiber in Pamela’s fingernail (after the fingertip had been severed). (2 Hrg. R.T.
5
256.) A blue, z-shaped line is clearly visible in that photo. (2 Hrg. R.T. 256.) The z-shaped line is the
6
blue fiber that Gregonis allegedly found. (2 Hrg. R.T. 257.) Dr. Bowers testified that, considering the
7
size and amount of blue material that Gregonis removed, if those fibers had been present at the time
8
that the autopsy photographs had been taken, the blue fibers would have shown up in the autopsy
9
photographs. (2 Hrg. R.T. 257-58.)
10
11 D. Evidence Introduced by the Prosecution.
12 Gregonis testified that hair found under Pamela’s fingernail did not match either Richards or
13 Pamela. (2 tr. R. T. 409.) Gregonis testified that he was aware that criminalist Ogino had opined that
14 this hair was historical, but that he (Gregonis) could not “say either way.” According to Gregonis, the
15 hair “could be historical or could be something to do with the incident.” (2 Hrg. R.T.409.)
16 With regard to the stepping stone, Gregonis testified that the DNA found could have been on
17 the stone and then covered with Pamela’s blood or that the DNA could have been deposited at a later
18
point in time. (2 Hrg. R.T. 415-16.) However, the DNA was found in areas where Gregonis would
19
have expected the murderer’s DNA to be located. (2 Hrg. R.T. 435.) Gregonis also acknowledged that
20
his testimony regarding the stepping stone being a weapon was “more definite” at trial and has changed
21
since that time. (2 Hrg. R.T. 436.) Gregonis also acknowledged that the manner in which an object
22
was handled might have an impact on the presence of DNA. Rougher handling would more likely
23
24 result in the presence of DNA. (2 Hrg. R.T. 439-40.)
25 The ratio of male DNA to the victim’s, for the DNA found at area A-18-15, the ratio was
26 approximately 1:6. (2 Hrg. C.T. 289.) admitted by stipulation [2 Hrg. R.T. 248; 4 Hrg. C.T. 991].) In
27 addition, Gregonis testified that he would “certainly . . . expect” that there would be a greater quantity
28 of DNA from Pamela’s blood than from the perpetrator’s handling of the stepping stone. (2 Hrg. R.T.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
24
1 438-39.) And, as indicated, Gregonis agreed that the ratios of Pamela’s DNA and the unknown DNA
2 was consistent with the theory that the unknown male DNA was deposited by the perpetrator. (2 Hrg.
3 R.T.439-40.)
4 With regard to the tuft of fibers, Gregonis testified that he recalled having discovered it only
5
after looking at the nail through a microscope. (2 Hrg. R.T. 420.)
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
7
ARGUMENT
8
A. This Court Should Dismiss the Charges Because They Are No Longer Supported by
9 Sufficient Evidence (Pen. Code, § 995).
10 The court must set aside an information where “the defendant had been committed without
11 reasonable or probable cause.” (Pen. Code, § 995, subd. (a)(2)(B).) Probable cause is shown if a
12 person of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and to conscientiously entertain a
13 strong suspicion of the guilt of the defendant. (Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471, 474;
14 People v. Ramirez (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 800, 813 [an information will not be set aside if there is
15 some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused
16 is guilty of it];Williams v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1144, 1147-1148.) A trial court lacks
17 jurisdiction to proceed on an information founded against defendant on insufficient evidence. (People
18 v. McBride (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 824, 828.) A defendant in a felony prosecution may move to
19 dismiss the indictment at any time before trial. (Ghent v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1979)
20 90 Cal.App.3d 944, 950.)
21 Here, there is insufficient evidence to support the murder charges in that, based on the
22 available information, a person of ordinary caution and prudence would not entertain a strong
23 suspicion that Richards committed the crime. For one, there is unknown male DNA on the murder
24 weapon in this case. And, significantly, Richards’s DNA is not on the murder weapon. Additionally,
25 there is a nearly one-inch hair underneath the victim’s fingernail which matches neither Richards nor
26 the victim. As for the bite mark evidence, the injury to Pamela’s hand, if it is a bite mark did not
27 originate from Richards. The evidence shows that Pamela never made it to town to do laundry and
28 the neighbors heard the dogs on the property barking long before Richards got home. This evidence,
__________________________________________________________________________________________
25
1 coupled with the fact that it is an impossibility that Richards had time to commit this crime in the time
2 period allotted, does not have a significant amount of blood on his person despite the bloody crime
3 scene, does not have any marks or injuries to himself despite the violent struggle in this case, and
4 evidence the fiber in Pamela’s fingernail was planted or there by contamination, there simply is not
5 sufficient evidence to establish a “rational ground” for assuming Richards committed this murder.
6 Hence, the charges must be dismissed.
7 B. This Court Should Dismiss the Charges Because the Prosecution Is One of Vindictiveness.
8 California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 5-110, provides:
9 A member in government service shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal
charges when the member knows or should know that the charges are not supported
10 by probable cause. If, after the institution of criminal charges, the member in
government service having responsibility for prosecuting the charges becomes aware
11 that those charges are not supported by probable cause, the member shall promptly
so advise the court in which the criminal matter is pending.
12
13 Here, however, despite the lack of probable cause, as discussed above, the People are
14 persisting with the prosecution of Richards. This prosecution is continuing even though Richards’s
15 conviction has twice been reversed— once by a judge of this court finding that post-conviction evidence
16 completely undermined the People’s case and pointed unerringly to innocence (Exhibit B, p. 481),
17 and most recently by the California Supreme Court in a unanimous decision in which they found the
18 People introduced false evidence against Richards at his last trial and which was material to the
19 conviction. (In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 948.) Notably, the People are not presenting the critical
20 bite mark evidence which was crucial to a conviction in this case. The prosecution is continuing
21 prosecution despite the fact that laws have been changed by the Legislature in response to Richards’s
22 wrongful conviction.12 The prosecution is continuing despite the fact that Richards is dying of prostate
23 cancer with a prognosis of two to three years. (Exhibit F, Medical Opinions.) And the prosecution
24
25
26 12 Sen. Com. on Pub. Safety, Bill No. 1058 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.), p. 4 “The issue this bill
seeks to address was clearly depicted in the California Supreme Court case, In Re Richards, 55 Cal.4th
27 948 (2012).”]; see also Associated Press, California Man’s Murder Case Prompts New State Law (Feb.
15, 2015) Daily Mail <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2954460/California-mans-case-
28
prompts-new-law- expert-testimony.html#ixzz4BrDzTtwd> [as of June 16, 2016].)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
26
1 is continuing despite the victim’s family’s insistence that the People have prosecuted the wrong person
2 for Pamela’s murder and that there is DNA on the murder weapon and underneath Pamela’s
3 fingernail that does not match Richards. (6 Tr. R.T. 1974; Exhibit A.) More troubling is that the
4 prosecution is continuing, at great expense to the government, with no apparent benefit to the public
5 or for this case as a practical matter. Richards has been found suitable for parole and, therefore,
6 would have no further time to serve if convicted after his fourth jury trial. (Exhibit D, p. 106.) There
7 is no indication from the Governor’s office that they would have blocked parole and all
8 communications with that office have indicated the contrary. Indeed, it was the State that advanced
9 Richards’s parole hearing in the first place and then subsequently granted parole. (Exhibits C & D.)
10 Given these circumstances, it is apparent that, not only is the evidence insufficient to proceed
11 to a jury trial on this matter, but the motivation for prosecution is one of vindictiveness. It appears the
12 San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office is willing to prosecute Richards no matter the state
13 of the evidence and no matter the cost. Although it is difficult to ascertain the People’s motive in this
14 case, recently, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office issued a press release wherein
15 they claim they have a “record of only convicting the guilty.”13 Coupled with the fact that San
16 Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos’ desires to be elected as Attorney General in
17 2018,14 the refusal to dismiss the charges against Richards despite the exceedingly problematic case
18 is indicative of ulterior motives and vindictiveness in this case.
19 At this point, it is unconscionable for the prosecution of Richards to continue. Richards was
20 about to walk out the door of prison on parole and the People are seeking to punish him by using the
21 reversal of the conviction to actually prolong his incarceration by re-prosecuting him, further showing
22 the People’s vindictiveness. (In re Bower (1985) 38 Cal.3d 865, 873 [due process violations occur
23
24
25 13 Statement from District Attorney Ramos regarding formation of Conviction Review Unit
(April 7, 2016) <http://www.sbcountyda.org/Newsroom/PressReleases/2016/StatementfromDistrict
26 AttorneyMikeRamosregardingformationofConvictionReviewUnit.aspx> [as of June 17, 2016].
27
28
14 Mike Ramos for California Attorney General <http://www.joinmikeramos.com/> [as of
June 17, 2016].
__________________________________________________________________________________________
27
1 where the defendant is punished for exercising his right to appeal; such circumstances create a
2 presumption of vindictiveness].) Hence, the court should dismiss the charges on this ground.
3 C. Richards Suggests this Court Should Dismiss the Charges in Furtherance of Justice (Pen.
Code, § 1385).
4
Penal Code section 1385 allows a trial court to dismiss the charges “in furtherance of justice.”
5
Specifically, section 1385, subdivision (a) states:
6
The judge or magistrate may, either of his or her own motion or upon the application
7 of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be
dismissed. The reasons for the dismissal shall be stated orally on the record. The
8 court shall also set forth the reasons in an order entered upon the minutes if requested
9 by either party or in any case in which the proceedings are not being recorded
electronically or reported by a court reporter. A dismissal shall not be made for any
10 cause that would be ground of demurrer to the accusatory pleading.
11 While section 1385 does not provide for a defense motion to dismiss in the interests of justice,
12 case law permits a defendant to “request” that a court exercise its own power to so move under this
13 section. (See, e.g., People v. Brooks (1980) 26 Cal.3d 471, 475, fn. 2; People v Superior Court
14 (Flores) (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 127, 136.)
15 Here, the justification for dismissing the charges is as follows:
16 # Richards’s conviction was reversed in 2009 with Judge Brian S. McCarville finding that
17 false evidence was introduced against Richards and new evidence completely
18 undermined the prosecution’s case and pointed unerringly to innocence. (Exhibit B.)
19 # The California Supreme Court reversed Richards conviction for a second time in a
20 unanimous decision in which they found the People introduced false evidence against
21 Richards at his last trial. (In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 948.)
22 # The Legislature has expressed concern over Richards’s conviction and, in fact,
23 changed the law in response to the appellate reversal of Judge McCarville’s decision.
24 # Richards has already served over 23 years for this crime.
25 # Richards has been found suitable for parole and, therefore, would have no further
26 time to serve if convicted after a fourth jury trial. (Exhibit D, p. 106.)
27 # Richards is dying of prostate cancer with a dire prognosis. (Exhibit F.)
28 # The victim’s family does not believe Richards committed this crime and believed
__________________________________________________________________________________________
28
1 someone else murdered Pamela. (6 Tr. R.T. 1974; Exhibit A.)
2 # The evidence, as it stands, is insufficient for the People to obtain a conviction.
3 # Richards is, in fact, innocent of this crime and society does not benefit when a person
4 is serving prison time for a crime he did not commit..
5 # The public has expressed concern and outrage over the continued prosecution of
6 Richards. (Exhibit G, News Articles.)
7 Given the above factors, dismissal of Richards’s case in the interest of justice seems an
8 appropriate remedy under the circumstances.
9 CONCLUSION
10 For the reasons stated above, Richards respectfully asks this court to dismiss the charges
11 because the evidence is insufficient to rationally conclude Richards committed this crime, the
12 prosecution is continuing due to a vindictive motive. Alternatively, Richards suggests this court dismiss
13 the charges under Penal Code section 1385 “in furtherance of justice.”
14
15 Dated: June 19. 2016
16 ALEXANDER SIMPSON
Attorney for Petitioner
17 WILLIAM RICHARDS
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE
2 Case Name:
3 PEOPLE v. WILLIAM RICHARDS
[Superior Court No. FVI00826]
4
5 I declare that I am over the age of 18, not a party to this action and my business address is 225 Cedar
Street, San Diego, California 92101. On the date shown below, I served the within MOTION TO
6 DISMISS CHARGES FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE (Pen. Code, § 995),
VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION, AND SUGGESTION TO DISMISS IN THE INTERESTS OF
7 JUSTICE (Pen. Code, § 1385); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF to the following parties hereinafter named by:
8
X BY PERSONAL DELIVERY - Handing a true copy thereof, to the following person
9 at the following location:
10
11 Michael Risley, D.D.A.
14455 Civic Drive
12 Victorville, CA 92392
13
14
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and
15 correct and that this declaration was executed on June 20, 2016, in San Diego, California.
16
17
Alissa Bjerkhoel
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
479
1 anybody knows. All we know is during the videotape, that
2 photograph, there is a blue fiber. Because Mr. Gregonis
3 points it out and shows how he's taken it out of the

4 fingernail. But the rest of it, there are colors here.
5 There are marks there. I have no idea what that is
6 there, whether there is fibers there or not. And there is

7 no way anybody in this court knows. And neither does any of
8 petitioner's experts. That's called speculation. And it
9 all depends on what angle the photo is taken at, how clear
10 the photo is. There is too many factors to take into
11 consideration.
12 And again, that does not show that this petitioner
13 is innocent. Take all these things and put them together,
14 none of them, when you put them together, show that this
15 petitioner is innocent.
16 Sure, there might be some issues as to one expert
17 against another expert, or there might be some contested
18 issues as to some evidence, but nothing that petitioner has
19 presented during this hearing shows that this petitioner is
20 innocent. And that's the burden they have to show.
21 And with that, I submit.
22 THE COURT: Thank you.
23 MR. STIGLITZ: Nothing further, your Honor. I'm
24 satisfied that the Court understands this case and that we
25 presented enough for it to grant the petition.
26 THE COURT: The Court is mindful of the evidence
27 that was presented during the testimonial portions of this
28 writ proceeding. In addition, the Court has considered the
LINDA A. MEEKINS, C.S.R., R.P.R.

480
1 petitioner and respondent's briefs which were filed on

2 July 17th and July 24th, respectively.
3 As indicated earlier, I have reviewed the
4 transcripts that were prepared during the testimonial
5 portion of these proceedings, as well as my own notes. And
6 I've gone through the trial transcripts that were provided.
7 So the Court has a good idea of what occurred
8 during the trial proceedings that occurred in the High
9 Desert.
10 The Court has considered the evidence with respect
11 to the bite mark and the DNA as well as the hair evidence
12 and the allegations with respect to Mr. Gregonis
13 individually and alleged misconduct.
14 I have not taken those portions of evidence
15 individually, but I have taken them collectively in light of
16 each of the witnesses that testified.
17 The Court finds that the petitioner's failed to
18 establish that the criminalist, Gregonis, presented perjured
19 or planted evidence in this case.
20 The Court is concerned, however, that the tuft
21 fiber that was located does raise factual concerns. And
22 while those concerns do not establish, to my satisfaction,
23 that it was planted or perjured, it is of concern to the
24 Court when evaluating petitioner's burden of proof as well
25 as the other evidence that was presented to me during the
26 portion of the hearing dealing with the bite mark analysis
27 and the DNA analysis and the hair.
28 The Court finds that the evidence with respect to

481
1 the bite mark analysis and the DNA analysis and the hair
2 analysis has established, taken together, that there was
3 a -- that there did exist and does exist a fundamental doubt
4 in my mind as to the accuracy and reliability of the
5 evidence presented at the trial proceeding.
6 This finding is based upon the Court's review of
7 the trial transcript as well as assessing the credibility of
8 the witnesses that have testified before me.
9 Taking the evidence as to the tuft fiber -- and
10 when I say tuft, I'm talking about the blue fiber under the
11 finger, -- and the DNA and the bite mark evidence, the Court
12 finds that the entire prosecution case has been undermined,
13 and that the petitioner has established his burden of proof
14 to show that the evidence before me presents or points
15 unerringly to innocence.
16 Not only does the bite mark evidence appear to be
17 now questionable, it puts the petitioner has being excluded.
18 And while I agree with Mr. Sinfield's statements with
19 respect to the flat stone versus the cinderblock, the DNA
20 evidence establishes that someone other than petitioner and
21 the victim was present at the crime scene.
22 For purposes of Mr. Sinfield's objection with
23 respect to the testimony or the report of Dr. Bowers, I
24 should say, the Court notes the objection. It's overruled.
25 Dr. Bowers testified to the contents of the report. I find
26 it was properly received into evidence.
27 Based upon all the evidence presented, the Court
28 grants petitioner's application. The petition for writ of

482
1 habeas corpus is granted.
2 The petitioner's counsel is directed to prepare the
3 writ for signature by the Court and to give notice.
4 This Court's order will be stayed for a period of
5 15 court days to allow respondent, if it chooses, to seek a
6 stay with the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of
7 Appeal, to appeal this Court's finding in granting of a writ
8 pursuant to Penal Code Section 1506 and California Rule of
9 Court 8.388.
10 If no stay or appeal is taken, the petitioner's
11 case is transferred back to the Victorville division of the
12 San Bernardino County Superior Court for trial setting.
13 Bail is set at the current bail schedule. That is
14 the 2009 bail schedule. That is one million dollars.
15 The proceeding is concluded. I need counsel
16 there were transcripts lodged by petitioner's counsel.
17 I've -- it's a big box, and I don't want to mail it. So if
18 you want to take those -- any objection to the transcripts
19 that were lodged being returned?
20 MR. SINFIELD: No, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Transcripts lodged up in Victorville
22 are ordered returned back to counsel. The exhibits are to
23 remain in the Court's file pending review.
24 While I understand that it's a de novo review with
25 the Court of Appeal, as case law suggests, the Court of
26 Appeal does accord weight to the trial court's decision with
27 respect to certain findings. So if there is no appeal, then
28 they will be returned to the proffering parties to be used

EXHIBIT C
BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PETITION TO ADVANCE DECISION FORM

AUTHORITY: PC §3041.5(d)
0 Petition approved. advance next parole suitability hearing to next available calendar. Once the hearing is scheduled, the
inmate will be ootitied.
D Petition approved, advance next parole suitability hearing from to years after previous hearing. Once the hearing is
scheduled, the inmate will be notified of the new date.
D Petition denied.
Decision based on the reasons stated below.
ON AUGUST 10, 2011, WILLIAM RICHARDS WAS DENIED PAROLE FOR FIVE YEARS. HE SUBMITTED A PETITION TO
ADVANCE HIS NEXT PAROLE SUrTABIUTYHEARING ON OCTOBER 23, 2015.
PURSUANT TO PC SECTION 3041.5(D)(1), AN ADVANCEMENT OF A PAROLE SUrTABILITY HEARING DATE IS

APPROPRIATE WHERE THERE IS A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OR NEW INFORMATION THAT ESTABLISHES A
REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ADDrTIONAL
PERIOD OF INCARCERATION.
RECORDS INDICATE NO REGISTERED VICTIMS.
IN DENYING PAROLE, THE PANEL CrTED LACK OF PAROLE PLANS, MINIMAL SELF-HELP AND STATIC FACTORS
SUCH AS THE LIFE CRIME. MR. RICHARDS WAS NOT PRESENT ATTHE HEARING. HE WAS OUT TO COURT. (MR.
RICHARDS CLAIMS HIS LIFE CRIME WAS REVERSED BUT REINSTATED ON APPEAL BASED ON A LEGAL
TECHNICALITY.)
IN SUPPORT OF HIS PETrTION, MR. RICHARDS SUBMITTED MEDICAL REPORTS INDICATING HE HAS BEEN
BATTLING ADVANCED RECURRENT PROSTATE CANCER SINCE HIS LAST HEARING IN 2011. THE CANCER
APPEARS TO BE CONTROLLED AS OF APRIL 2015. HOWEVER, THE REPORTS INDICATE THERE IS A HIGH
·PROBABILITY THE CANCER WILL COME BACK AGAIN. MR. RICHARDS ALSO QUALIFIES FOR ELDERLY PAROLE.
AFTER REVIEWING, ALL MATERIALS SET FORTH ABOVE ALONG WITl-1 A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE
CENTRAL FILE, rT APPEARS THERE IS SUFFICIENT NEW INFORMATION AND A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCE TO
SUPPORT MR. RICHARD S'S REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT.
FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE AND THE DISCRETION AFFORDED UNDER PC 3041.5(D)(2), THE BOARD WILL
ADVANCE MR. RICHARDS'S NEXT PAROLE SUrTABILITYHEARING.
October 30, 2015
BPH 1045 (C) (Rev. 10/20/2014) 2 of 2

EXHIBIT D
106
1 CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE BBARINGS
2 D B C I S I 0 N
3 DZPUTY CONMISSIONBR GROTTKAU: Commissioner ,
4 we ' re back on record.
5 PRBSIDING CONMISSIONBR TURNBR: All right. 5 : 35
6 p.m . We're back on the record. All the parties that
7 were in the room and the Deputy District Attorney that ' s
8 on the telephone have returned for the reading of the
9 decision in the case of William Richards , P-22020.
10 According to the California Supreme Court, in making a
11 parole eligibility decision the Panel must not act
12 arbitrarily or capriciously and must consider all
13 relevant and reliable information that's available . We
14 have considered the entire written record in front of us
15 including any documents submitted at the hearing today,
16 any written responses received from the public and
17 today's testimony. The fundamental consideration in
18 making a parole eligibility decision is the potential
19 threat to public safety upon an inmate's release.
20 Accordingly, a denial of parole must be based upon some
21 evidence in the record of inmate's current
22 dangerousness. Having that standard in mind,
23 Mr. Richards, the Panel is going to find you suitable
24 today.
25 WILLIAM RICHARDS P-22020 DBCZSION J!AGB 1 3/29/16
Northern California Court Reporters

107
1 INMATB RICHARDS: Thank you.
2 PRESIDING COMMISSIONBR TURNBR: We do take into
3 consideration the commitment offense and whether or not
4 you were actually responsible for the murder of your
5 wife is not our call to make. You'll have to answer to
6 a higher power than this Panel. But the crime itself
7 was gruesome. It was callous and, obviously, there was
8 no regard for human suffering. Your wife died as a
9 result of being strangled and bashed in the head with
10 some kind of a stone, paver, rock or some kind of heavy
11 object.
12 DZPOTY COMMISSIONBR GROTTKAO: And being choked.
13 PRZSIDING COMNISSIONBR TURHBR: Strangled, yes.
14 DBPUTY COMMISSIOHBR GROTTKAO: Strangled.
15 PRBSIDIHG COMNISSIOHBR TORNER: The Panel also
16 has to look at the fact that you have no prior criminal
17 history as a juvenile or an adult. You have no prior
18 record of any violent behavior. There's allegations of
19 domestic violence but you have no arrest and convictions
20 for domestic violence . Your social life seemed to be
21 very stable in the sense that you were employed in the
22 community. You had long-term employment and you were
23 involved in your job and apparently did a very good job.
24 Your lifestyle, the alternative open relationship ,
25 WILLIAM RICBARl>S P-22020 DBCISIOH PAGB 2 3/29/16

108
1 that's a personal choice. You everybody doesn't
2 necessarily understand t h at lifestyle choice but that
3 was your choice and you apparently didn't have an issue
4 with your wife having sex other men or yourself
5 having sex with other womer.. You know, to each his own.
6 So that could be some o= unstableness depending on
7 whose view that is. We looked at the fact that you
8 don ' t have any history of a ny drugs or alcohol use.
9 Don ' t have any history of fighting and gang
10 activities in the communi ty. And your disciplinary
11 history in prison has good. You ' re only
12 you only have the one 115 from 2004 and that was for a
13 tattoo gun. Nothing for any So all in all,
14 we have to look at those of suitability. The
15 fact that you deny the commitment offense is not
16 something that we can utilize in finding you unsuitable.
17 We didn't necessarily , you believe it hook and
18 sinker but, you know, we t ake as true the court ' s
19 finding. They convicted you of it so we basically agree
20 with what the court's convi c t ion says. Your
21 Comprehensive Risk gives you an overall low
22 risk so it is somewhat supp ortive of release and the
23 doctor does have a couple of comments in relationship to
24 your inability to identify and acknowledge shortcomings
25 W:ILLXAM RICHARDS P-22020 DBCXSXON PAGJ: 3 3/29/16

109
1 suggested a lack of insight. The doctor had a concern
2 about vulnerability in future relationships. You
3 indicate that's not your intentions to have a future
4 relationship. That you're going to be pretty much
5 dealing with your health problems and your cancer. Fond
6 we looked at the fact that you do have a large of
7 support letters. You have transitional housing. You
8 have laudatory chronos. You have good work reports. So
9 there was nothing that was presented to this Panel today
10 that demonstrated that you would be an unreasonable risk
11 to public safety and so, therefore, we find you suitable
12 today . Deputy Commissioner?
13 DBi-UT!' COMNISSJ:OHZR GROTTKAU : I agree with the
14 Commissioner. Again, to state, that this is not a
15 reflection on whether this Panel believes you did this
16 heinous crime or not. Again, we believe it to be true
17 as a fact to move forward from there. You have done ,
18 basically, book reports and focused on some of the
19 anger. You have not had any anger issues that have
20 risen to any kind cf level that would cause a 115 or
21 even a 128 that we're aware of, You've had several
22 laudatories. You've had -- been a diligent worker.
23 You've had good supervisor reports and have learned
24 vocations as we stated while you've been in the
25 WII.LIAM RJ:CBARDS P-22020 DBCXSION PAGB 4 3/29/16

110
1 institution. The fact that you were ailing or are
2 currently ailing did not bear any factor on this Pane l
3 either because that's neither here or there. We have to
4 look at you from, you know, your potential danger to a
5 current risk of danger to the public right now and
6 having no domestic squabbles or anything else that were
7 recorded, as the Commissioner had stated, by the -- by
8 any law enforcement or anything else like that . You
9 have -- you have decided to give yourself self-help a nd
10 understanding and you apparently are able to diffuse any
11 kind of anger in an institutional setting when that
12 happens on a daily basis . So as you sit in front of u s
13 right now we don't, as the Commissioner had stated,
14 you an unreasonable ris k of danger to the public.
15 Commissioner?
16 PRESIDING COHNISSIONBR TURRBR: So we had talked
17 to you about your remorse letter . It was a little
18 different than the ones we normally see where you
19 basically are still protesting you're innocent and, yo u
20 know, work diligently to find out whose DNA it was . All
21 of those kind of things. What I would like to see you
22 do while you're waiting for this process to go throug h
23 is looking to going to CCCMS and doing the one-on-one
24 therapy so you could kind of work through your grief sc
25 WILLIAM RICHARDS P-22020 DBCIS:IOR PAGB 5 3/29/16

111
1 that doesn't become a problem for you when you get out
2 of prison. I think that that ' s still something that
3 would be worth you investing in. So that's my
4 suggestion to you. Confidential. We read the
5 confidential file. There is confidential information in
6 there. The most recent thing was from 2007. We didn't
7 utilize that in making our decision today. You have
8 upgraded vocationally even though you already had
9 marketable skills and long-term employment in the
10 community. You've taken a number of vocational training
11 courses to enhance those marketable skills. You seem to
12 recognize that your health is very important and you
13 seem to understand with these various transitional
14 housing that that has to be something you have to follow
15 up on to get your medical stuff in order and to continue
16 with your treatment that was started, you know, here.
17 That you have to continue out there in the community .
18 We also took into consideration your lack of any
19 assaultive history as a juvenile. No other criminal
20 history. And your current age of 66 will reduce your
21 recidivism risk. We note the opposition from the
22 District Attorney ' s representative from San Bernardino
23 County as well as the San Bernardino County Sheriff,
24 both opposing your release on parole at this time. In
25 WILLIAM RICHARDS P-22020 DBCISJ:OR PAGB 6 3/29/16

112
1 calculating your release date per the Butler decision,
2 your life term start date was December the 11th, 1998.
3 The offense was First Degree Murder. It's 2403(b) of
4 the Title 15 matrix. The relationship between you and
5 the victim was a prior relationship. The harm was
6 severe The base term for that is 29 years. It
7 was aggravated for 12 months for the special
8 relationship with the victim of trust. She was married
9 to you. The adjusted base term calculation is 360
10 months. You ' ve done 17 years of eligibility, one year
11 of ineligible for the one year you got the 115. Sixteen
12 years of satisfactory adjustment. Four months ' credit
13 for each of those 16 years . Your post-conviction credit
14 calculation is 64 months. And we note that your minimum
15 eligible date was calculated to be June 5th,
16 2010. As far as special conditions of parole you'll be
17 referred to the Parolee Outpatient Clinic for evaluation
18 and treatment if treatment is deemed appropriate by the
19 Department of Adult Parole Operations. And you won ' t
20 have any contact with the victim ' s family, if there ' s
21 anybody left, without permission from your parole agent .
22 Remember, this is not a final decision. The decision
23 becomes final in 120 days after review by the Decision
24 Review Unit and the Governor ' s Office. You'll be
25 WILLIAM RICHARDS P-22020 DECISION PAQB 7 3/29/16

113
1 notified in writing if there's any changes to the
2 decision. So, like I said. in the interim while you're
3 waiting continue with your programming, but I think that
4 it would be to your to try to get into CCCMS and
5 go to one-on-one.
6 l:NMA.TB Rl:CBARDS: Okay.
7 PRBSIDIHG COMNl:SSIOlfBR TURHBR: Good luck to you .
8 It ' s 5:46 p.m. and your heari n g is now concluded.
9 l::NMATB RICHARDS: Thar.k you.
10 DBPUTY DISTRICT ATTORBBY Rl:SLBY: Thank you.
11 PRBSIDIHG COMNISSIONmR TURRBR: All-righty.
12 Thank you. Have a good evening.
13 DBPUTY DISTRICT ATTORBBY Rl:SLBY: You too.
14 PlUISIDl:HG COMMISSIONER TURHBR: All right.
15 A D J 0 U R H M B R T
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 WILLIAM RICHARDS P-22020 DBC::CSIOR PAGB 8 3/29/16

EXHIBIT E
09/ 30/ 98 lS : Sl '6'48'i 3965 RQ AFPC M:SIM.A
DEPARTMENT OF TH!! AIR FORCE 806

AIR FOA.C:lt "£1'-SONNII:\.. C:£1'4\£1\
AIR FORC"E BASE TO"'S
2 September 1998
HQ AFPCIMSIMD
550 C Street West Ste 48
RandolphAFB TX 78150-4780
R. Raynor
RPR & Associates
Investigative and Security Services
P0Box464
Riverside CA 91502
Dear Mr. Raynor
The Air Force Worldwide Locator is unable to identify Mark Nourse based upon the
information provided.
Sincerely
fl (:;1 47 /.4--- ...L-
/)iZZy.- G ·
. ·
Management Assistant
EXHIBIT
! B
EXHIBIT F
September 23, 2015
Christopher J. Kane, MD, FACS
Professor and Chair
Michael E. Albo, MD, FACS To Whom It May Concern,

Professor and Vice Chair
Jill C. Buckley, MD, FACS I have reviewed the medical records for Mr. William Richards with respect to
Associate Professor
his diagnosis of prostate cancer.
Ithaar H. Derweesh, MD
Professor
In August of 2007, Mr. Richards was diagnosed with cT2a, Gleason sum 7
T. Mike Hsieh, MD adenocarcinoma of the prostate. His blood prostate-specific antigen (PSA)
Assistant Professor
level, a marker of prostate cancer, was elevated to 6.53 ng/mL. Bone scan
Christina Jamieson, PhD and abdominal CT scan did not show any evidence of metastatic cancer.
Assistant Professor
This information indicates that the prostate cancer was moderately
A. Karim Kader, MD, PhD, aggressive but confined to the area in or immediately around the prostate
FRCSC
Associate Professor
gland (Stage 1 or 2), and was therefore highly amenable to cure with either
surgery or radiation.
Charles M. Lakin, MD
Associate Professor
Beginning in November of 2007, Mr. Richards was treated with targeted
C. Lowell Parsons, MD, FACS external beam radiation therapy combined with 6 months of androgen
Professor Emeritus
deprivation therapy. Androgen deprivation is a medical treatment, usually
J. Kellogg Parsons, MD, MHS, administered as a shot at 1-month or 3-month intervals, which deprives the
FACS
Associate Professor body of the male hormone testosterone. Since most prostate cancers
require testosterone to grow and spread, androgen deprivation is an
Kyoko Sakamoto, MD
Professor effective form of treatment.
Joseph D. Schmidt, MD, FACS
Professor Emeritus After he completed radiation and androgen deprivation in April of 2008, the
blood PSA level was 0.02 ng/mL, indicating a favorable response to
Roger L. Sur, MD
Associate Professor
treatment.
In August of 2010, Mr. Richards’s blood PSA level began to rise, suggesting
PEDIATRIC UROLOGY a potential recurrence of the cancer. In January 2011, the blood PSA level
Madhu Alagiri, MD
rose to 2.43 ng/mL. He received more androgen deprivation therapy, and
Professor the PSA again declined.
George J. Chiang, MD
Associate Professor In December of 2011, Mr. Richards underwent a prostate biopsy that
showed Gleason sum 7 prostate cancer, indicating the presence of
Nicholas M. Holmes, MD, MBA
Professor persistent or recurrent cancer.
George W. Kaplan, MD, FACS
Professor In August of 2012, Mr. Richards was referred to Loma Linda University for
consideration of prostate cryosurgery. Prostate cryosurgery is a minimally-
Sarah Marietti Shepherd, MD
Assistant Professor
DEPARTMENT OF UROLOGY
200 West Arbor Drive #8897 San Diego, CA 92103-8897 TEL: (858) 822-7874 FAX: (858) 822-6188
invasive surgical procedure in which the cancer is frozen with cooled gases injected into the
prostate using needles placed through the skin.
In September of 2012, Mr. Richards underwent uneventful prostate cryosurgery at Loma Linda.
The androgen deprivation treatments continued until April of 2013, at which time they were
discontinued. His blood PSA level began to slowly increase thereafter.
In May of 2014, his blood PSA level was 2.2 ng/mL.
In September of 2014, his blood PSA level was 3.2 ng/mL, suggesting a recurrence. Bone scan
and abdominal MRI scan did not show any overt evidence of metastatic cancer.
In January of 2015, his blood PSA level was 3.0 ng/mL. Androgen deprivation therapy was re-
initiated.
In April of 2015, in response to the androgen deprivation therapy, the blood PSA level had
fallen to 0.3 ng/mL. He was tolerating the therapy well.
In summary, Mr. Williams has recurrent prostate cancer after treatment with radiation,
androgen deprivation, and prostate cryosurgery. As of April 2015, the cancer appeared to be
adequately controlled with intermittent androgen deprivation therapy.
Mr. Williams will require indefinite monitoring and treatment with an oncologist or urologist.
While it is possible that the cancer will remain in its current quiescent, non-progressive state
with intermittent androgen deprivation treatments, there is a relatively high probability that it
will eventually progress and that he will require additional treatments, including but not
limited to chemotherapy.
Sincerely,
J. Kellogg Parsons, M.D., M.H.S., F.A.C.S.

Associate Professor of Surgery
jkparsons@ucsd.edu
2
REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS
Patient ID: William R.
Review Performed by: Stefanie Fletcher, R.N. LNC
Source: Medical Records
Chief Complaint: Recurrence of Prostate Cancer
Recommendations:
Compassionate release based upon recurrence of advanced prostate cancer

Evaluation by Oncologist for prognosis of recurrent advanced prostate cancer
Medical Record Review by expert M.D. practicing Oncology
Rationale:
It is more probable than not that Mr. R will die of prostate cancer either while awaiting the
current review of his status or very shortly after his release from incarceration, depending on the length
of time the case is before the court.
Review of Laboratory Results and Treatments:
Mr. R is a 65 year old man who was first screened for prostate cancer on September 5, 2003.
Although his initial PSA level was 3.8 there are no entries in the medical records or physician progress
notes addressing his condition, nor was there any follow-up for three years, although the standard of
care for a PSA level of 3.8 requires active monitoring. On April 10, 2007 Mr. R was again screened for
prostate cancer and his level was reported at 6.53. On June 13, 2007 he was seen for a consultation
and referral for treatment. His PSA level reached 8.07 on July 9, 2007 and a biopsy was performed on
July 11, 2007. The results of Mr. R’s biopsy revealed adenocarcinoma, a Gleason Score of 7 and
perineural invasion. It is likely, the near four year delay in treatment allowed for progression of his
prostate cancer.
The Gleason Scoring System is the most commonly used system to grade prostate cancer. The
pathologist evaluates the cancer cells and how they are arranged within the prostate to determine the
Gleason Score. 1 A Gleason Score of 7 is considered a medium-grade cancer. Perineural invasion
indicates the cancer has spread to the nerve fibers within the prostate which means it is more likely that
the cancer has metastasized outside the prostate. 2
1
www.cancer.net/cancer-types/prostate-cancer/stages
2
www.cancer.org/treatment/understandingyourdiagnosis/understandingyourpathologyreport/prostatepathology/
prostate-cancer-pathology
Mr. R was treated with radiation and hormone therapy after his biopsy in July 2007. This led to
a decrease in his PSA levels, the lowest being 0.2 on March 25, 2008. However, those levels began to
rise in March 2008, reported at 0.2 and had more than doubled by November, 2009 to 1.4. He was
evaluated by Dr. Mehta [Urology] on December 4, 2009 for cancer of the prostate gland, status post
radiation treatment with increasing PSA. Dr. Mehta recommended six months of treatment with
Degerelix, a hormone therapy for advanced prostate cancer. It is unclear from the medical records
provided if Mr. R received the Degerelix. On December 15, 2009 Dr. Richman noted that the Degerelix
treatment would be withheld while Mr. R was evaluated to see if his cancer had metastasized. Dr.
Richman also wrote that he would observe the PSA until it was 5-10 and then begin Lupron because
Degerelix is “equivalent to standard Lupron.”
On January 13, 2010 Mr. R had a repeat PSA, which was 0.2 and there are no reports of
subsequent PSA levels until June 13, 2013, by which time it had doubled to 0.4. On August 23, 2013
barely two months later, it had doubled again to 0.8, which led to a request for a Urology consultation
on September 23, 2013. On July 25, 2014 Mr. R was evaluated by a physician for the steady rise in his
PSA level, which had reached 2.2 on May 1, 2014. This represented over a 500% increase in less than a
year. An Oncology consultation was requested because of the rising PSA levels, but there is no evidence
Mr. R. ever received one. By January 1, 2015 Mr. R’s PSA level had risen to 3.3. A treatment order was
placed on February 21, 2015 for DepoLupron to be given every three months for one year. He is
currently receiving the medication, which will be discontinued in February 2016. Based upon the
medical records reviewed there are no oncologist notes that address his current condition or predict an
outcome of his most recent recurrence of cancer.
The current literature suggests that if there is a rise in PSA levels after initial treatment, it is
reasonable to make a second attempt to cure the cancer. This recommendation is directed to those
patients such as Mr. R, who have a localized recurrence. Because Mr. R had radiation and hormone
treatment initially, further radiation therapy may be contraindicated because of the danger of adverse
side effects such as normal tissue not being able to tolerate repeated exposure. 3 There are many
variables that determine therapy for recurrence including, how quickly the PSA is rising and the initial
Gleason score. These factors can also help the physician determine the patient’s prognosis and where
the cancer might show up in other areas of the body.
Mr. R’s PSA levels rose rather dramatically after his initial treatment and after receiving
treatment for his first recurrence in 2009. His PSA levels also rose quickly prior to his recurrence in
2014. Therefore, based upon current medical guidelines and literature, it is strongly recommended that
he be evaluated for his most recent recurrence to obtain a prognosis for his condition. The fact that Mr.
R’s PSA levels consistently rise after treatment indicates an advanced, potentially aggressive cancer that
according to qualified medical opinion, will likely kill him within two or three years.
3
www.canceranddrugs.blogspot.com/2010/08/cancer-radiotherapy-contraindications.html
EXHIBIT G
≡
“IT’S ABSOLUTELY STUPID.”

FIFTH TRIAL PLANNED IN BITE-
MARK MURDER CASE
Jordan Smith
June 16 2016, 9:22 a.m.
f t ✉ ⎕
11
Photo: Shutterstock
JUST W E E KS AFT ER a unanimous California Supreme Court threw

out Bill Richards’s murder conviction, prosecutors in San Bernardino
County have indicated that they will seek a fifth trial for the 66-year-
old. “It’s absolutely stupid,” said Richards’s longtime defender Jan
Stiglitz, a founder of the California Innocence Project, which has
represented Richards since 2001.
Richards was convicted in 1997 of killing his wife, Pamela, four years
earlier. The case has long been controversial and considered a wrongful≡
conviction based on the discredited junk science of bite-mark analysis.
Indeed, prosecutors tried three times to convict Richards — including
two full trials that ended in hung juries and a third that ended in a
mistrial — before employing at his fourth trial the testimony of a
renowned forensic dentist who claimed that an alleged bite mark found
on Pamela’s hand was a definitive match to Richards’ supposedly
unique lower dental pattern.
That expert, Dr. Norman “Skip” Sperber, recanted his testimony during
a 2008 evidentiary hearing, admitting that he should never have
testified as he did because there was no science to back up his
conclusion. The recantation ultimately led California’s highest court to
overturn Richards’s conviction on May 27. “Dr. Sperber’s trial testimony
that the lesion on Pamela’s hand was consistent with the assertedly
unusual dentition of [Richards’s] lower teeth constituted ‘false
evidence,’” the seven-member court agreed.
The San Bernardino DA’s office

has insisted that the bite-mark
evidence was not crucial to the
state’s case. But the Supreme
Court justices appeared
unpersuaded, explaining in
detail that without the bite
mark, the DA’s case was built
solely on highly contestable
circumstantial evidence.
The court’s ruling not only

vacated Richards’s conviction,
but also precludes prosecutors
from using the unreliable bite-
mark evidence if they retry the
case. Given the paltry evidence
left to tie Richards to the grisly
murder, his lawyers and
supporters had hoped that DA
Michael Ramos would simply
dismiss the case. But it appears
Ramos — who is running for
California attorney general in
2018, highlighting his record of
“holding criminals accountable
to the fullest extent of the law”
— is not inclined to do so.
Stiglitz told The Intercept that

Chief Deputy DA Clark Hansen
has advised him that the state Michael Ramos, San Bernardino County District
Attorney, March 7, 2006, in San Bernardino,
will try Richards again. Hansen Calif. Photo: Ric Francis/AP
did not respond to phone calls
seeking comment. Oddly, Christopher Lee, who serves as the DA’s
public affairs officer, has insisted in emails that no such decision has
been made. When pressed about why Richards’s defense team would
think otherwise, Lee’s last email was abrupt: “I have attempted to
answer your question on two occasions, and the answer remains the
same. Have a nice day.” Lee has not responded to an additional email.
Assuming the information provided to Richards’s lawyers is accurate,

the question becomes: Why? Richards has already been incarcerated for
more than two decades, since he was first charged with the August 10,
1993, strangulation and bludgeoning death of his wife of 22 years. And
just this spring, roughly two months before the Supreme Court vacated
his conviction, Richards was recommended for parole, despite the fact
that he maintains he is innocent — a circumstance that can make
obtaining an early release difficult at best.
At the 2008 hearing where Sperber recanted his testimony, Richards’s

defense team also proffered new DNA evidence, collected from a paving
stone and a cinder block used to crush Pamela’s skull, that revealed the
profile of an unknown male. Foreign DNA was also obtained from a hair
removed from under one of her fingernails.
Also undermined at the hearing was the state’s assertion at trial that a
tuft of blue fiber removed from a crack in one of Pamela’s torn
fingernails was consistent with a common blue work shirt that Richards
was wearing the night of the murder. At the hearing, an expert testified
that a photo of Pamela’s hand taken at autopsy showed no such fiber
was present; it wasn’t until later, after Pamela’s fingers had been
removed for additional analysis, that the fiber appeared. In short, the
new evidence strongly suggests the fiber was planted or possibly the
product of evidence contamination.
At the close of the hearing, Judge Brian McCarville ruled that the state’s
“entire case” had been undermined and that taken together, the
evidence before him pointed “unerringly” to Richards’s innocence.
RELATED
California Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction Based on
Flawed Bite-Mark Evidence
Junk Science on Trial in Bill Richards Bite-Mark Appeal

In Las Vegas, Embattled Forensic Experts Respond to Scandals and
Flawed Convictions
How the Flawed Science of Bite-Mark Analysis Imprisoned a Man

for Murder
CONTACT THE AUTHOR:
Jordan Smith
✉ jordan.smith@theintercept.com
t @chronic_jordan
˄⎕ 11 Comments
Name Email
Leave a comment
Submit
TH READ S L AT E ST
altohone
June 16 2016, 4:01 p.m.
Maybe Ramos will get lucky and end up running against someone with even higher unfavorable
numbers?
↪ Reply
Wnt
June 16 2016, 12:13 p.m.
It actually makes a kind of sense. Nobody has the money for five murder defenses… even the
richest would use it up in desperation, were they actually to be tried at all. So this is pro bono
work being used in the defense. And from the prosecutor’s point of view, which is better — leave
the pro bono/ACLU/Innocence Project crowd free to pull out another case revealing more
wrongdoing, or keep them spinning the selfsame hamster wheel and unimpressing lackluster
fans who yawn and say “oh, no, not this story again!”
This is a war of attrition, and Bill Richards is the luckless hamburger hill it is fought on.
↪ Reply
barabbas ↪ Wnt
June 16 2016, 2:16 p.m.
Little Kingdoms. The war of attrition is all about money. This style combat is now in every
corner of conflict; the Gawker-Hogan battle, which the backer of Hogan won may now be re-
challenged by an even stronger ally of Gawker who will then outspend Hogan’s backer. This
attrition style of war was supposed to be eliminated by the founding father’s concern for
double jeopardy. Then again by the right of attorney for trial which produced public defence.
The rights of the regular person have been stolen thru many means including; the Lanham
Act, parsing an offence to produce a dozen charges for one crime, disregard for the supreme
court, and a perpetual insistance by ambitious persons claiming they are never wrong about
anything.
Consider this case; California franchise tax board vs Hyatt. you wont believe it.
↪ Reply
phineas ↪ Wnt
June 16 2016, 2:36 p.m.
How much does a motion to dismiss based on 2 hung juries, a mistrial and a conviction
thrown out by the US Supreme Court. with prejudice, after 20 years of( (false) incarceration
actually cost? A paralegal’s salary for a few hours and printer toner?
How much will it cost after Richard’s is let out of jail and sues California for 20 yrs of flase
imprisonment?
How much would society gain by making cops, judges and prosecutors personally
responsible for their (mis)actions?
↪ Reply
ether
June 16 2016, 11:14 a.m.
“Assuming the information provided to Richards’s lawyers is accurate, the question becomes:
Why?”
wasn’t this question already answered?
“But it appears Ramos — who is running for California attorney general in 2018, highlighting his
record of ‘holding criminals accountable to the fullest extent of the law’ — is not inclined to do
so [drop the case].”
and what’s stupid about that?
↪ Reply
phineas ↪ ether
June 16 2016, 2:31 p.m.
He’ll get nowhere and spend a lot of taxpayer money doing it?
↪ Reply
ether ↪ phineas
June 16 2016, 4:05 p.m.
ok if the office of the california attorney general is nowhere
it doesn’t seem stupid to me. seems more like cruelty or depraved indifference. but with no
way of being certain i guess the author could only suggest the motive and rule out the motive
of justice. she did a very good job with that
↪ Reply
phineas ↪ ether
June 16 2016, 4:39 p.m.
This case has engendered 2 hung juries, a msitrial and a conviction thrown out by the
Supreme Court – after 20 yrs of false imprisonement, which disallowed use of the only
evidence that mattered to 4 juries. After Richards’ lawyers get done with the civil suits
agaisnt California for false imprisonment and ,now, malicious prosecution it would be a
wonder if this Attorney General could successfully chase an ambulance.
↪ Reply
Doug Salzmann
June 16 2016, 10:51 a.m.
Yet another example of one of the reasons that electing prosecutors (and judges), especially in a
society that is obsessed with punishment and vengeance, may not be the best possible path to
justice.
And qualified immunity isn’t nearly sufficiently qualified.
↪ Reply
RB
June 16 2016, 9:43 a.m.
Couldn’t there be some legal blowback for the prosecutors themselves? By law, they are
supposed to obey supreme court rulings.
Wouldn’t the prosecutors be risking their own “personal” assets in a counter-suit? Sovereign
immunity was only intended to protect “official” actions, like following supreme court rulings –
not disobeying high court rulings.
At minimum they should be disbarred from ever practicing law again.
↪ Reply
Doug Salzmann ↪ RB
June 16 2016, 11:40 a.m.
Couldn’t there be some legal blowback for the prosecutors themselves? By law, they
are supposed to obey supreme court rulings.
The ruling was on a petition for habeas corpus. It has no effect other than to overturn the
conviction.
VI. DISPOSITION
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted.
The judgment of the San Bernardino County Superior Court in
People v. William Richards, No. SWHSS700444, is vacated.
~CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J.
Nothing in the order prevents the prosecution from re-trying the case; it is prevented only
from reintroducing the idiotic bite-mark “evidence.”
The D.A. with aspirations to higher office may think he can get a conviction merely on the
basis of the pathetically weak circumstantial evidence he still has, or he may calculate that
his “tough on criminals” reputation will be enhanced and help his election chances,
regardless, or he may just be a nasty-ass moron.
↪ Reply
Newsletter
Don’t miss the best of
The Intercept
Enter your email address
Email list managed by MailChimp
ISIS IN AMERICA
Nine Lost Souls the FBI Charged as Terrorists While Letting
the Orlando Shooter Go
⎕

Richards Vindictive Prosecution Motion

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Richards Vindictive Prosecution Motion

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

[J

13 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Superior Court No. FVI00826

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE & VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION

19 2. DNA from the Murder Weapon.

12 2. Dr. Gregory Golden’s declaration and testimony.

26 218, 232, 234, 246.)

12 4. Report and testimony from Dr. Raymond Johansen.

17 jurisdiction to proceed on an information founded against defendant on insufficient evidence. (People

20 90 Cal.App.3d 944, 950.)

14 (Flores) (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 127, 136.)

15 Here, the justification for dismissing the charges is as follows:

24 # Richards has already served over 23 years for this crime.

26 time to serve if convicted after a fourth jury trial. (Exhibit D, p. 106.)

27 # Richards is dying of prostate cancer with a dire prognosis. (Exhibit F.)

1 anybody knows. All we know is during the videotape, that

2 photograph, there is a blue fiber. Because Mr. Gregonis

3 points it out and shows how he's taken it out of the

5 There are marks there. I have no idea what that is

6 there, whether there is fibers there or not. And there is

8 petitioner's experts. That's called speculation. And it

10 the photo is. There is too many factors to take into

13 is innocent. Take all these things and put them together,

17 against another expert, or there might be some contested

18 issues as to some evidence, but nothing that petitioner has

19 presented during this hearing shows that this petitioner is

20 innocent. And that's the burden they have to show.

21 And with that, I submit.

22 THE COURT: Thank you.

23 MR. STIGLITZ: Nothing further, your Honor. I'm

24 satisfied that the Court understands this case and that we

25 presented enough for it to grant the petition.

26 THE COURT: The Court is mindful of the evidence

27 that was presented during the testimonial portions of this

28 writ proceeding. In addition, the Court has considered the

LINDA A. MEEKINS, C.S.R., R.P.R.

1 petitioner and respondent's briefs which were filed on

LINDA A. MEEKINS, C.S.R., R.P.R.

2 analysis has established, taken together, that there was

3 a -- that there did exist and does exist a fundamental doubt

4 in my mind as to the accuracy and reliability of the

5 evidence presented at the trial proceeding.

6 This finding is based upon the Court's review of

7 the trial transcript as well as assessing the credibility of

8 the witnesses that have testified before me.

9 Taking the evidence as to the tuft fiber -- and

12 finds that the entire prosecution case has been undermined,

13 and that the petitioner has established his burden of proof

14 to show that the evidence before me presents or points

16 Not only does the bite mark evidence appear to be

17 now questionable, it puts the petitioner has being excluded.

18 And while I agree with Mr. Sinfield's statements with

19 respect to the flat stone versus the cinderblock, the DNA

20 evidence establishes that someone other than petitioner and

21 the victim was present at the crime scene.

22 For purposes of Mr. Sinfield's objection with

23 respect to the testimony or the report of Dr. Bowers, I

24 should say, the Court notes the objection. It's overruled.

25 Dr. Bowers testified to the contents of the report. I find

26 it was properly received into evidence.

27 Based upon all the evidence presented, the Court

28 grants petitioner's application. The petition for writ of

LINDA A. MEEKINS, C.S.R., R.P.R.

1 habeas corpus is granted.