Breaking News: William Richards; California; (Discredited bite mark evidence case); California high court agrees to reconsider 1993 murder case. Appeal enabled by legislation spurred by a previous decision in his case in which the state's high court refused to overturn his conviction - (a 4-3 decision). The new legislation provided that discredited forensic testimony amounts to false evidence and can be grounds for a new trial. Publisher's Note: Due to a 'writing' assignment, I will not be filing fresh posts for several weeks. (With the exception of breaking news;) When I am back in action I will make up for lost time with a vengeance. In the meantime, please keep me up to date with developments and don't hesitate to bring new matters of interest to this Blog to my attention at hlevy15@gmail.com.

BREAKING NEWS:  (California Supreme Court will reconsider murder conviction obtained with discredited bite mark evidence. A change in state law spurs California's top court to reconsider case of discredited forensic evidence. Nearly three years after upholding murder verdict, California's top court takes another look):  "A San Bernardino man convicted of murder in part because of discredited forensic evidence will have his case reviewed again by the California Supreme Court. Meeting in closed session, the justices decided unanimously Wednesday to hear a challenge by William Richards, who was found guilty of murdering his wife, Pamela, in 1991. The state's high court examined Richards’ case in 2012 and refused to overturn his conviction. In response to that 4-3 decision, the Legislature passed a bill that said discredited forensic testimony amounts to false evidence and can be grounds for a new trial. The California Innocence Project asked the court to reconsider Richards’ case in light of the new law. Richards, 65, was tried three times. Juries deadlocked in the first two trials. In the third, a dental expert testified that a lesion on the Pamela’s body was a bite mark that matched Richard’s unusual tooth pattern. The jury convicted. The expert later recanted, saying he had been mistaken........."  (Reporter Maura Dolan; Los Angeles Times); 
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bite-mark-court-20150318-story.html

Thanks to Mike Bowers of the CSI DDS Blog for drawing this story to our attention);

 http://csidds.com/2015/03/19/false-forensic-bitemark-case-gets-another-ca-high-court-look/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
 
Dear Readers. Due to a 'writing' assignment,  I will not be filing fresh posts for several weeks. (With the exception of breaking news;)  When I am back in action I will make up for lost time with a vengeance. In the meantime, please keep me up to date with developments and don't hesitate to bring new matters of interest to this Blog to my attention at hlevy15@gmail.com.
 
Best wishes,
 
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
 
PS: For latest coverage of the Mark Lundy retrial  go to: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/mark-lundy-murder-retrial