Granillo v. State

Summary

The court held that later-discredited scientific testimony is evaluated under the constitutional false-evidence standard rather than the newly discovered evidence standard. It concluded that microscopic hair and fiber testimony presented at Granillo’s trial exceeded the limits of science, that there was a reasonable possibility the testimony contributed to the convictions, and that Granillo was entitled to a new trial. Justice Ginoza, joined by Circuit Judge Kubota, concurred in the result but would apply harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt review rather than the majority’s materiality standard.