California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

SB 938 — Trial testimony: expert witnesses: writ of habeas corpus.

Last action — Referral to Com. on JUD. rescinded due to the shortened 2020 Legislative Calendar.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis of false evidence that is substantially material or probative to the issue of guilt or punishment that was introduced at trial. Existing law defines false evidence for these purposes as including the opinions of experts that have been repudiated by the expert or that have been undermined by later scientific research or technological advances. This bill would expand the definition of false evidence to include the opinions of experts that are undermined by scientific research that existed at the time of the expert's testimony and opinions for which a reasonable dispute has emerged within the expert's relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods or theories upon which the expert based their opinion. (2) Existing law limits the testimony of a witness who is testifying as an expert to matter that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which the expert's testimony relates. Existing law allows a witness testifying in the form of an opinion to state on direct examination the reasons for their opinion and the matter upon which it is based. This bill would specify that an expert opinion based on circular reasoning is not based on matter that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon a subject. The bill would define circular reasoning as referring to any portion of an expert's opinion that is solely based upon the premise that the expert seeks to conclude, including any portion of the opinion or testimony that is based upon studies, literature, data, or other materials on which the expert relies that accepts the same unproven premise that the studies, literature, data, or other materials on which the expert relies seeks to conclude.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

1 added · 1 removed

1 line(s) added, 1 removed.

→
Previous
Latest
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBill Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill Text PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. Referral to Com. on JUD. rescinded due to the shortened 2020 Legislative Calendar.

  2. March 31 hearing postponed by committee.

  3. Set for hearing March 31.

  4. Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.

  5. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 8.

  6. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 938 do?
(1) Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis of false evidence that is substantially material or probative to the issue of guilt or punishment that was introduced at trial. Existing law defines false evidence for these purposes as including the opinions of experts that have been repudiated by the expert or that have been undermined by later scientific research or technological advances. This bill would expand the definition of false evidence to include the opinions of experts that are undermined by scientific research that existed at the time of the expert's testimony and opinions for which a reasonable dispute has emerged within the expert's relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods or theories upon which the expert based their opinion. (2) Existing law limits the testimony of a witness who is testifying as an expert to matter that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which the expert's testimony relates. Existing law allows a witness testifying in the form of an opinion to state on direct examination the reasons for their opinion and the matter upon which it is based. This bill would specify that an expert opinion based on circular reasoning is not based on matter that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon a subject. The bill would define circular reasoning as referring to any portion of an expert's opinion that is solely based upon the premise that the expert seeks to conclude, including any portion of the opinion or testimony that is based upon studies, literature, data, or other materials on which the expert relies that accepts the same unproven premise that the studies, literature, data, or other materials on which the expert relies seeks to conclude.
Who sponsors SB 938?
SB 938 is sponsored by Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 938?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 938?
Track SB 938 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 938

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 938

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →