Opinion ID: 2980499
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements Actually False

Text: It is unclear whether Kemp’s trial-court testimony was actually false. Woods points to Napue in support of his claim for relief. See 360 U.S. at 267. There, the Supreme Court accepted that trial testimony was false because a witness stated on the trial record he was not receiving consideration for his testimony, but the prosecutor later requested a lighter sentence based on such consideration. Id. When it comes to Kemp’s testimony, we lack such a clear inference of falsity. Woods asked the Michigan Court of Appeals to believe Kemp’s evidentiary-hearing testimony over his trial testimony because he risked a significantly longer prison sentence by recanting. Although Kemp’s precarious legal situation does lend credibility to his post-conviction testimony as an admission, that credibility - 11 - No. 09-1071 Darryl Woods v. Raymond Booker, Warden is pitted against the suspect nature of a recanting witness’s testimony. See United States v. Chambers, 944 F.2d 1253, 1264 (6th Cir.1991) (“recanting affidavits and witnesses are viewed with extreme suspicion”). The recanting testimony is further discredited by the time that elapsed between Kemp’s trial testimony and his recanting testimony, and the possibility that he may have received money transfers in exchange for his testimony. The state court of appeals could reasonably have concluded that Woods failed to demonstrate Kemp’s trial-court testimony was actually false.