Opinion ID: 755880
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Presentation of Perjured Testimony

Text: 50 Finally, Ortiz argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by supplying Alvarez with the details of his testimony, thereby suborning perjury. If a prosecutor knowingly uses perjured testimony or knowingly fails to disclose that testimony is false, the conviction must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury verdict. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 844 (9th Cir.1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 51 Ortiz first raised the subornation of perjury issue in his third state petition for post-conviction relief. The state court held an evidentiary hearing on the issue, during which six witnesses testified. The state court considered allegations that Alvarez had admitted to a cell mate that he was going to testify falsely against Mr. Ortiz by saying on the stand whatever prosecutors told him to say. After careful review of these allegations, however, the court ultimately found that [t]here was no credible evidence ... that the testimony given by Jose Alvarez at the original trial of this action was perjured. 52 We presume the correctness of credibility determinations made at the trial court level. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8) (1994) (providing that a factual determination by the state court shall be presumed to be correct unless the federal court concludes that such factual determination is not fairly supported by the record); see also Tomlin v. Myers, 30 F.3d 1235, 1242 (9th Cir.1994) (The state court concluded her testimony at the evidentiary hearing was not credible, and we accord this determination a presumption of correctness.). As the Supreme Court declared in Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 103 S.Ct. 843, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) gives federal habeas courts no license to redetermine credibility of witnesses whose demeanor has been observed by the state trial court, but not by them. Id. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 843. 53 Ortiz has failed to present any evidence rebutting the presumption of correctness that attaches to state court credibility determinations in habeas cases. More to the point, even if Alvarez's testimony was perjured, there is no record evidence indicating that the prosecution knew that this was the case. In the words of the state court, There is more than adequate evidence in the trial record to convict Ortiz even if Alvarez had never testified. 54 In sum, after thoroughly examining each of Ortiz's claims of prosecutorial misconduct, we find that none of the alleged incidents, taken together or separately, warrants reversal. See Turner v. Marshall, 63 F.3d 807, 818 (9th Cir.1995) (reviewing both individual and cumulative impact of alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct).