Q: Is new testimony from a witness on a case stating they lied in court enough to recall a ca se despite plea deal?

A: Under California law, if a witness recants their testimony and admits to lying in court, it could potentially be grounds for the defendant to challenge their conviction, even if the case was resolved through a plea bargain. This is especially true if the defendant can demonstrate that the false testimony was a significant factor in their decision to accept the plea deal.

In such a situation, the defendant or their attorney could file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the conviction should be overturned due to the false testimony. They would need to present evidence, such as the witness's affidavit admitting to lying in court, to support their claim.

The court would then review the petition and the evidence presented. If the court finds that the false testimony was material to the case and likely influenced the outcome, it may order a new trial or other appropriate relief, such as vacating the plea and conviction.

However, the mere recantation of testimony by a witness does not automatically guarantee a new trial or the overturning of a conviction. The court will consider various factors, such as the credibility of the witness's recantation, the timing of the recantation, and the overall strength of the evidence in the case.

It is important to note that challenging a conviction based on recanted testimony can be a complex legal process, and the outcome may depend on the specific circumstances of the case. It is recommended that the defendant consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney to evaluate their options and develop an appropriate legal strategy.