Opinion ID: 3066178
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mooney-Napue Violation

Text: Appellants contend that the government knowingly failed to correct Davis’ false testimony that he was not promised a sentence reduction in violation of Mooney and Napue. “A conviction obtained using knowingly perjured testimony violates due process, even if the witness’s perjured testimony goes only to his credibility as a witness and not to the defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Houston, 648 F.3d 806, 814 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). “The government’s failure to correct testimony that it later learns is perjured is also a Mooney–Napue violation.” Id. (citation omitted). “To prevail on a Mooney–Napue claim, the defendant must show that (1) the testimony was actually false, (2) the prosecution knew or should have known that the UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ 39 testimony was actually false, and (3) that the false testimony was material.” Id. (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). “In assessing materiality under Napue, we determine whether there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury; if so, then the conviction must be set aside. Under this materiality standard, the question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.” Id. (citation omitted). “However, if it is established that the government knowingly permitted the introduction of false testimony reversal is virtually automatic.” Id. (citation omitted). Appellants’ Mooney-Napue claim is premised on their contention that there was a tacit agreement that the government would assist Davis in receiving a sentence reduction based on his favorable testimony. However, Appellants failed to proffer any evidence of a tacit agreement, particularly as the government’s post-verdict actions were consistent with the fully disclosed letter agreement and with Davis’ testimony that the letter agreement was not contingent upon the trial’s outcome. Appellants are unable to demonstrate that Davis’ testimony “was actually false” or that “the prosecution knew or should have known that the testimony was actually false . . .” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, a new trial was not warranted.12 12 Although Appellants maintain that cumulative error warrants a new trial, there were no errors, cumulative or otherwise, requiring reversal of Appellants’ convictions. See Pineda-Doval, 614 F.3d at 1036 (holding that even if the defendant had been permitted to introduce evidence 40 UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ