Case Background
On August 10, 1993, William Richards returned home. He discovered his wife, Pamela, murdered. Richards called 911 immediately. Police, however, treated him as a suspect.
Cause of Legal Dispute
A recklessly deficient investigation triggered the legal dispute. Authorities fabricated forensic evidence. Also, they wrote false police reports. They suppressed exculpatory evidence, too. Detectives focused solely on Richards. They ignored inconsistencies. Moreover, they failed to pursue other suspects. This misconduct led to Richards' wrongful conviction.
Injury to Plaintiff
Richards suffered wrongful imprisonment for over 22 years. He experienced extreme mental anguish and physical pain. His health deteriorated due to inadequate medical care. Furthermore, he lost relationships with family and friends.
Damages Claimed
Richards claimed damages for lost liberty and emotional harm. He sought compensation for medical effects and lost earnings. The claimed damages included past and future losses.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): William Richards
Counsel for Plaintiff: Wendy Koen | Susan E. Coleman
Defendant(s): County of San Bernardino | Mark Nourse | Norman Parent | Tom Bradford | John Navarro | Daniel Gregonis | Norman Sperber | Does 1–10
Counsel for Defendants: Kristina Doan Gruenberg
Claims Against Defendants
Richards filed claims against individual officers and the county. The first claim involved civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It targeted individual defendants. The second claim involved a Monell claim against the County of San Bernardino. Later, DNA evidence revealed a third party's involvement. This led to his exoneration. The California Supreme Court reversed his conviction in 2016.
Defense
The County of San Bernardino and associated officers denied the allegations of misconduct, fabricating evidence, and constitutional violations. They asserted that investigations were conducted properly, without any reckless or malicious conduct, and that procedural protocols were followed.
Their defenses included statutory immunities, qualified immunity, and witness immunity. They also claimed lack of standing and failure to state a claim. Furthermore, they argued that the Third Amended Complaint failed to state a cause of action due to the applicable statute of limitations and that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Jury Verdict
On July 2, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, William Richards, awarding a total of $25.241 million in damages, broken down as follows:
$11.5 million in compensatory damages for past harm
$11.5 million in compensatory damages for future harm
$2.241 million in punitive damages
Court Documents
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]