Opinion ID: 701770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Perjured Testimony Claim

Text: 75 Tackett also moves for a new trial on the grounds that the government presented perjured testimony. A district court's denial of a new trial should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. United States v. Barlow, 693 F.2d 954, 966 (6th Cir.1982). 76 To prevail on a claim that the government presented perjured testimony, Tackett must show (1) that the statements were actually false; (2) the statements made were material; and (3)[the] prosecution knew they were false. United States v. Farley, 2 F.3d 645, 655 (6th Cir.1993). Tackett has failed to meet the first prong. 77 Two witnesses, Lewis Jenkins, Sr. and Lewis Jenkins, Jr., each said that Linda Tackett paid them on December 7, 1991, at the Tackett's farm in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Both said they saw Brian Tackett. Tackett, however, claimed he was in Findlay, Ohio. 78 After trial, Tackett called Neton Allen Sisk, who worked on the Tackett farm with the Jenkinses. Sisk stated that the Tacketts paid them on December 8. This does not establish that the Jenkins's statements were false, but only that someone was mistaken about the date. The jury had a chance to observe the witnesses' credibility, and Tackett could have called Sisk at trial. Additionally, the government presented other evidence to establish that Tackett was in Bowling Green on the day of the fire. Finally, even if the statements were false, Tackett fails to meet the third prong because he has not even hinted that the government knew they were false. 79 Tackett also claims that the government threatened Kim Patton and forced her to lie in order to convict him. Patton, however, stated at trial that no one threatened her or promised her anything as compensation for testifying. Tackett presents no evidence that Kim Patton perjured herself, except his own testimony. 14 The jury chose to believe Kim Patton over him. Therefore, we fail to find any evidence of perjured testimony. 80 The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Tackett's motion for a new trial based on perjured testimony.