Memorandum of Points and Authorities A. Preliminary - Justice Denied

stains during their quick search 20 years earlier.” (Exh B: 25.) As the
Court also noted, “neither officer remembered anything about the
shoes he wore that day, so any suggestion that one of the two left the
prints would be pure speculation.” (Exh B: 25.)
Based on the evidence at the hearing, the federal court ruled that
“Petitioner has demonstrated to this Court that the bloody shoe print
in the guest bathroom and one of the shoe impressions in the dirt
outside the house were left by someone other than himself, disproving
the State’s 1985 theory of his guilt.” (Exh B: 25.)
(d) Blood spatter evidence
The California Court of Appeal, in affirming Lisker’s conviction
on direct review, said that “compelling[]” evidence of his guilt was
provided by “an expert in forensic serology and bloodstain pattern
interpretation [who] determined, based on his examination of
appellant’s clothing and photographs of the murder scene, that the
blood on appellant’s clothing, which was of his mother’s type, spattered
onto it at the moment when his mother suffered a blunt force injury.”
(Exh J: 14.)
Mr. Linhart testified at the evidentiary hearing and said that “he
did not reach the conclusion attributed to him by the California Court
of Appeal, that blood was transferred onto Petitioner’s clothing at the
moment when the victim suffered a blunt force injury.” (Exh B: 28;
EHT Vol. III: 489.) Indeed, there is nothing in Linhart’s trial
testimony that supports the Court of Appeal’s statement. (RT 700-
756.) In fact, Linhart’s trial testimony was “that the blood evidence
-36