Opinion ID: 612017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of Perjured Testimony at Trial

Text: 7 Wilkinson contends that two police officers, who testified as witnesses for the state, committed perjury. In particular, he alleges that Turner, a University of Arizona Police Officer, falsely testified that: (1) Wilkinson's pants were unzipped when he stepped out of his truck; and (2) Wilkinson was pulled over because he failed to heed a stop sign. Wilkinson also challenges Tucson Police Officer Harris's testimony that the footprint outside Aboud's bedroom window matched Wilkinson's shoe. 8 Although the constitution prohibits the state from knowingly presenting false testimony, the state need not prove its case by unimpeachable testimony, and contradictory testimony does not constitute perjury. United States v. Wolf, 813 F.2d 970, 976 n. 18 (9th Cir.1987); Carothers v. Rhay, 594 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir.1979). Wilkinson has not shown that any of the challenged testimony by Turner or Harris was false; nor has he shown that the prosecutor knew that any of their testimony was false. At most, his allegations against the state witnesses amount to challenges to their credibility, which was fully explored at trial and determined by the jury. Accordingly, Wilkinson was not deprived of due process. See id. 9