The first two elements are established here. Because the prosecution in this case did not obtain the evidence until after trial, the proceeding upon which the third element must focus is the new trial motion, not the trial itself. Here, the Kansas courts ruled in the functional equivalent of a hearing on a new trial motion that the evidence did not warrant relief, a ruling that in effect establishes the evidence was not material to the available post-trial proceedings. Consequently, Mr. Smith's due process rights were not denied by the State's failure to disclose the information promptly. In Sanders the witness at trial who identified the petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime subsequently recanted his testimony and swore that the crime had been committed by another.
Sanders is distinguishable from the instant case in material respects.
A credible recantation such as that in Sanders eliminates the basis for conviction. Contrary to the situation in Sanders, the witnesses here did not recant their testimony that Mr. Smith had sexually abused the victim. Because the State did not knowingly use the false testimony at trial, and because the new evidence contradicting trial testimony, while impeaching, did not itself eliminate the basis for Mr. Smith's conviction, we hold that Mr. Smith is not entitled to relief. In view of our conclusion that the circumstances here do not present the compelling situation upon which the court grounded its ruling in Sanders, we conclude this is not the case to revisit Wild and McBride as urged by Mr. Smith.