People v. Richards

CORRIGAN, J.,

Concurring.—I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to address the observations put forward in the concurring opinion of my colleague. The separate opinion emphasizes the “relevance” of the fact that two previous juries were unable to reach a verdict without the bite mark *316evidence. (Cone. opn. of Liu, J., post, at p. 320.) To conclude that the case is weak merely because a jury, or even two, did not return a verdict is often an exercise in speculation.

Our role as a reviewing court is to determine whether the false evidence admitted in this case was “ ‘material,’ ” a…