1

The death penalty_William Richards is Found “Factually Innocent”

Student Name

Course

Institution

Date
 2

The death penalty_William Richards is Found “Factually Innocent”

In this case, William Richards, Richards was convicted on the counts of biting the

complainant. The case went on trial up to four times where the three of the four all ended in a

mistrial. The Fourth case went on to seek the advice of the dentist to define whether the case was

adequately considered before the judgment was made. In the case, Dr. Norman Sperber was used

to define whether the case was adequately defined. He testified that the bite which was on

Pamela's hand was unique since out of 100 people only two or less had the same unique features

in their lower jaw. In 1997, Richards was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years in

prison (StanfordLawSchool, 2016). However, there were multiple appeals about the case and

this resulted in botched investigations and the results showed that there was questionable

testimony as well as planted evidence which brought out questions regarding the issue. Richards

then filed an appeal case citing that his rights had been violated and further called for the case to

be reconsidered (DPF Blog, 2021). Multiple questions brought out the credibility issues of the

investigation that was made. this led to the judges terming the case as lacking enough facts to

consider the case of him being guilty of the murder.

The CIP then led the way towards investigating the case where the law ended up

discrediting his information and the forensic testimony was considered null and void. The

evidence was defined to be false and this set up new grounds regarding the trial. The CI[P then

resulted in the new writ of habeas corpus which defined that the conviction was based on false

arguments and further resulted in the development of a new trial. In 2016, Richards was then

released and the attorney's office further stated that the conviction was based on a false

accusation. This was after a total period of 23 years after his arrest. Upon his release, the judges

defined that his release was not based on the innocence basis (StanfordLawSchool, 2016).
 3

They further pointed that his murder conviction would remain on the list and that he had " no

rights as a citizen." this meant that he was faced with a situation where he could be retried at any

time upon request from the judge. However, this meant that there was a need to present new

evidence which could be used to back up the facts of the face. This meant that this factual

innocence showed that Richards could ask for compensation by filing a case for the years he

spent behind bars since as of that time, he was considered as being innocent (DPF Blog, 2021).

This is based on the stipulations of the state that if one is convicted wrongfully, they are entitled

to get at least $140 for every day they spend behind bars. However, Richards remains strong

where he stated that besides being found as innocent, he still believes that justice for his wife had

not yet been realized since the person who committed the act is still at large

(StanfordLawSchool, 2016). Despite having a good career as an engineer, he still believes that

there was no justice and plans to relocate to Europe to start a new life there. Richards was further

found out to have prostate cancer which has affected him since he got it while in prison.

For this case, Williams was wrongfully convicted since there was no sufficient evidence

to back up the claims that he killed his wife. With the three trials being made but with no

sufficient conclusions in the case, there was a need to develop a clear strategy that would define

the facts of the case and get justice for his murdered wife as well as that of his wrongful

accusation (StanfordLawSchool, 2016). On the fourth trial, the judges found there was no

evidence to back up the claims and there was a need to have a clear focus of the facts of the

events and what should be done to get justice to his murdered wife as well as that of his wrongful

accusations (DPF Blog, 2021). Also, the use of the bite marks as evidence was not well planned

since there was the probability that this could have been done by another person within a similar

dental formula (DPF Blog, 2021). This made the facts of the case to be weak and ended up in
 4

his wrongful conviction (StanfordLawSchool, 2016). This meant that there was a conflict of

interest in the presiding judges since the case was not backed up appropriately with evidence

beyond doubt.

The case of William Richardson thus was appropriately dealt with and there was no

adequate data to bring forth the justifications of him committing the crime he was accused of.

The outcome was that there was a need to focus on appeal in evidence rather than the use of a

dental formula which resulted in a wrongful conviction. There was also sufficient evidence to

show the factual innocence of the accused and the long-term goal was to bring justice to his

departed wife which was not achieved.

 5

References

DPF Blog. (2021, July 7). William Richards is found “Factually innocent”. Death

Penalty Focus. Retrieved December 7, 2021, from

https://deathpenalty.org/william-richards-is-found-factually-innocent/

StanfordLawSchool. (2016, May 26). People v. Richards - S223651 - Thu, 05/26/2016 |

California Supreme Court resources. California Supreme Court Resources |

Stanford Law School Robert Crown Law Library. Retrieved December 7, 2021,

from https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-richards-34477