Thursday, July 23, 2026
Page 4
Court of Appeal:
Convicted Killer Due Habeas Relief on False Evidence Claims
Opinion Grants Petition, Remands Case for Evidentiary Hearing on Whether San Bernardino Prosecutors Knew About Coroner’s Report Contradicting Testimony of Paramedic Regarding Number of Gunshot Wounds
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has granted a convicted murderer’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on allegations that the prosecutor proffered false evidence by relying, at least in part, on the testimony of a responding paramedic indicating that the victim suffered gunshot wounds to the head and chest as evidence of premeditation even though the autopsy report, which was not admitted, said there was only one entry point.
Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez authored the opinion, joined in by Justices Michael J. Raphael and Carol D. Codrington, remarking:
“Because the Fontana Police Department submitted a narrative report describing the autopsy as well as the findings therefrom, we infer, without evidence to the contrary, that the prosecution was aware of the autopsy report and its results.”
Saying that, “[i]n this situation, we are ill-suited to make factual determinations,” he declared that “[w]e…must remand the matter…with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing” on, among other things, how the paramedic came to the conclusion that there were two entry points, what information the prosecutor had regarding the autopsy report, and whether that document was provided to defense counsel as material exculpatory evidence.
The defendant, Marcil McCowen, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 50 years to life in prison in 2001 relating to the 1998 fatal shooting of Diamond Anderson, had filed petitions for habeas relief in 2024 in the San Bernardino Superior Court and in Div. Two, both of which were denied.
Supreme Court Order
He then petitioned the California Supreme Court, which, in February, issued an order to show cause, returnable before Div. Two, as to “why petitioner is not entitled to relief on the grounds the prosecution knowingly introduced false testimony in violation of petitioner’s due process rights…and that false evidence was introduced at trial.”
Div. Two’s opinion, which was filed on June 25 and certified for publication yesterday, rejects the assertion by lawyers with the Attorney General’s Office that the defendant’s false evidence claim is procedurally barred because it was not raised in the trial court or on direct appeal. Ramirez commented:
“[T]he issuance of the order to show cause was the Supreme Court’s determination that the petition had stated a prima facie claim and that it was not procedurally barred. Yesterday’s order certifying the decision for publication provides:
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion in the above matter be modified to add and incorporate the concurring opinion of RAPHAEL, J., attached to this order.”
In that concurrence, Raphael said:
“We published our opinion in response to a request suggesting it would establish a broad rule: that the Supreme Court’s issuance of an order to show cause definitively determines that a claim is not procedurally barred by forfeiture at trial. I write to explain why I do not read our opinion that way.”
Trial Testimony
During McCowen’s trial, witnesses testified that the defendant shot Anderson at a birthday party without provocation while the victim was showing off his new infant son, who was being held by a friend, to the host.
McCowen testified to past tensions with Anderson and said he drew his firearm only after the victim came at him with a bottle of alcohol in his hands and the gun “went off by accident.” The paramedic who responded after the shooting testified that Anderson suffered two gunshot wounds, including one to the head that caused brain matter to seep out; the autopsy report showed only an upper-chest entry-point and that the head was intact.
Detectives who collected evidence at the scene only located one shell casing. They were not called to testify at trial.
Ramirez noted:
“The People also do not dispute that the prosecutor argued to the jury that the fact two gunshots were fired into the victim supported a finding the petitioner committed a deliberate and premeditated killing. It is thus established as undisputed that false evidence was proffered. Despite the assertions there is no evidence the prosecutor knowingly presented false evidence, the People have not proffered a declaration by the prosecutor to explain why the coroner was not called as a witness to establish the cause of death, or why the autopsy report was not proffered, or that there was no evidence to show when or if the prosecutor possessed the autopsy report.”
Case records available on the San Bernardino Superior Court website do not provide the name of the deputy district attorney who handled the trial.
Due Process Right
The jurist pointed out that a defendant’s constitutional right to due process is violated if a conviction is obtained through evidence that is known by prosecutors to be false. A new trial is demanded if there is any reasonable likelihood that the materials affected the judgment.
Turning to the trial record, he opined:
“The bottom line here is that there is no factual dispute that there is a significant discrepancy between the paramedic’s testimony and the coroner’s report, and that the People relied on the paramedic’s false or erroneous, yet uncorrected, testimony to argue that having shot at the victim twice, the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated first degree murder.”
He continued:
“Given the prosecutor’s arguments at trial that repeatedly emphasized the two gunshot wounds to the victim as negating any claim of accident or self-defense, we must conclude that the paramedic’s testimony was material. The results of the autopsy would have seriously undermined the paramedic’s credibility, and, along with the findings of the detectives who were dispatched to the scene of the shootings where they found but a single shell, would have precluded the People’s closing argument for a first degree murder conviction based on the false evidence of two separate gunshot wounds.”
Ramirez declared:
“The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing in accordance with our opinion.”
Raphael’s Concurring Opinion
Raphael emphasized that the Supreme Court, in setting an order to show cause, makes only a preliminary determination that the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief and remarked:
“When the Supreme Court issues an order to show cause, the respondent has not yet filed a return. Determining at that point that no trial forfeiture has occurred would leave the respondent no chance to argue—or even offer facts—as to why relief should not be granted for that reason….Moreover, a procedural default is arguably part of the ‘cause’ that has been set for determination; a rule that precludes us from adjudicating it could mean a contested issue is decided with no stated reasoning at all.”
He added that his court’s opinion “should not be construed as resting on a view that the Supreme Court implicitly decided the issue before the parties briefed it.”
The case is In re McCowen, 2026 S.O.S. 2147.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company