Bruce Lisker

The California Supreme Court has denied the petition of a San Fernando Valley man seeking to overturn his 1985 murder conviction, despite a federal court ruling "that there is essentially no evidence" that he killed his mother. The justices this week rejected Bruce Lisker's petition on procedural grounds without considering the merits of his case, said Lisker's attorney, William Genego.

A San Fernando Valley man who has amassed compelling evidence that he was wrongfully convicted of killing his mother more than two decades ago was denied bail Friday by a federal judge. Bruce Lisker's unusual request to be released from prison while he appeals his conviction was denied by U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, who last year found there was "essentially no evidence" that Lisker is guilty of the 1983 beating and stabbing death of his mother.

Attorneys for a San Fernando Valley man who says he was unjustly convicted of killing his mother in 1983 filed papers in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Friday seeking to have him released from prison on bail. Bruce Lisker's attorneys argued that the highly unusual request should be granted because Lisker has proved that he is most likely innocent of the crime and because he is caught in a procedural limbo as he waits for the California Supreme Court to decide whether to take up his case.

State prison officials on Thursday rejected the parole bid of a San Fernando Valley man who says he was wrongly convicted of murdering his mother more than 24 years ago. Despite new evidence casting doubt on Bruce Lisker's conviction, a two-member parole board concluded that he remained "an unreasonable safety risk to the public" and should not be released.

Despite convincing two federal judges "that there is essentially no evidence" that he killed his mother, a San Fernando Valley man must return to state court to pursue his bid to have his 1985 conviction overturned, a judge has ruled. U.S. Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky, in a decision made last week but announced publicly Tuesday, said federal law requires that new evidence pointing to Bruce Lisker's innocence be presented in state court before the case can proceed in federal court.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a San Fernando Valley man who claims he was falsely convicted of killing his mother has demonstrated he is probably innocent and should be allowed to seek freedom despite having missed a deadline to appeal. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips is a significant step in state prison inmate Bruce Lisker's quest to have his 1985 conviction overturned, legal observers said.

In his analysis of Bruce Lisker's 1985 murder conviction, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky this week debunked incriminating evidence against Lisker, assailed the government's case and showed a willingness to break new legal ground. Zarefsky's findings dealt a severe blow to the state attorney general's defense of Lisker's conviction and added credence to Lisker's claim that he was wrongly convicted of the killing of his mother.

Concluding that Bruce Lisker's conviction for the 1983 slaying of his mother has been "effectively dismantled," a federal magistrate recommended Thursday that Lisker be allowed to proceed with his claim of innocence in federal court. In a 57-page report, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky wrote that he had "no confidence" in the guilty verdict rendered at Lisker's 1985 trial in Van Nuys and that, based on new evidence, "no reasonable juror" would be likely to convict him today.

A San Fernando Valley man who claims he was wrongly convicted of murdering his mother more than 20 years ago agreed Monday to waive a scheduled parole hearing for up to one year while he seeks to overturn his conviction in federal court.

Capping a weeklong hearing into the 20-year-old murder conviction of Bruce Lisker, attorneys on both sides of the case clashed Friday over whether Lisker had amassed enough evidence of his innocence to move forward with his legal appeal in federal court. Lisker attorney William Genego argued that he and his colleagues had "completely blown out" the prosecution's case and that Lisker should be allowed to proceed with his habeas corpus petition.