California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

SB 243 — Trial testimony: expert witnesses: writ of habeas corpus.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  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 2021-2022 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 require a court in any criminal proceeding, when considering whether expert testimony is based on matter that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion, to determine whether the expert's opinion and any supporting literature, studies, research, or other bases on which the expert relies in forming their opinion are based on a reliable foundation, properly tested methodology, and sound logic, as specified. The bill would specify that an opinion or any supporting literature, studies, research, or other bases that lack a reliable foundation, properly tested methodology, and sound logic are not matter that may reasonably be relied upon. The bill would specify that if a portion of the expert's testimony extends beyond the underlying support, the court may allow the portions of the testimony that do not extend beyond the underlying support if they are otherwise admissible.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. May 20 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  3. Set for hearing May 20.

  4. April 5 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  5. Set for hearing April 5.

  6. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 520.) (March 16). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  7. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  8. Set for hearing March 16.

  9. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  10. From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 21.

  11. 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

Votes

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 1000
Unaffiliated 5000
Republican 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Portantino — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

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 243 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 require a court in any criminal proceeding, when considering whether expert testimony is based on matter that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion, to determine whether the expert's opinion and any supporting literature, studies, research, or other bases on which the expert relies in forming their opinion are based on a reliable foundation, properly tested methodology, and sound logic, as specified. The bill would specify that an opinion or any supporting literature, studies, research, or other bases that lack a reliable foundation, properly tested methodology, and sound logic are not matter that may reasonably be relied upon. The bill would specify that if a portion of the expert's testimony extends beyond the underlying support, the court may allow the portions of the testimony that do not extend beyond the underlying support if they are otherwise admissible.
Who sponsors SB 243?
SB 243 is sponsored by Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 243?
This bill died with 2021-2022 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 243?
Track SB 243 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 243

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 243

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →