Opinion ID: 1534029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the motion is procedurally time barred

Text: Pursuant to CR 60.02, a motion for relief from judgment made under the rule grounded on allegations of perjury, must be brought not more than one (1) year after entry of the judgment. Spaulding attempts to escape this time limitation by arguing that the fact of Garner's conviction of perjury constitutes a reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief within the meaning of CR 60 .02(f). What constitutes a reason of extraordinary nature is left to judicial construction. Civil Rule 60.02 ... abolishes the `writ of coram nobis,' and authorizes the granting of this type of relief by motion made under that Rule. Harris v. Commonwealth, Ky., 296 S.W.2d 700, 702 (1956). Further, we stated, ... CR 60.02 does not extend the scope of the remedy nor add additional grounds of relief. Id. Thus, we conclude that a CR 60.02(f) is a catch-all provision that encompasses those grounds, which would justify relief pursuant to writ of coram nobis, that are not otherwise set forth in the rule. See Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 932 S.W.2d 359, 361 (1996); see also Anderson, 168 S.W.2d at 52-53 (the writ of coram nobis is part of the Commonwealth's due course of law protected by Ky. Const. Sec. 14.). The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy which will issue for the judicial correction of a wrong committed in the administration of criminal justice resulting in the deprivation of life or liberty without due process of law. Merrifield v. Commonwealth, ex rel. Buckman, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 214, 215 (1955). Thus, if the introduction of perjured testimony at Spaulding's second trial amounted to a denial of due process of law, then his motion is properly brought under CR 60.02(f) and is subject to a reasonable time limit rather than a one-year time limit. The resolution of this question turns on the more general issue of whether a conviction based on perjured testimony rises to the level of a denial of due process of law in the Commonwealth. We begin by noting that the deliberate introduction of perjured testimony by a prosecutor is incompatible with the rudimentary demands of justice. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104, 108 (1972)(internal quotation marks omitted). The same is true if a prosecutor, though not soliciting it, allows perjured testimony to go uncorrected. Id. When the perjured testimony could in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury, the knowing use by the prosecutor of perjured testimony results in a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and a new trial is required. Id. at 153, 92 S.Ct. at 766, 31 L.Ed.2d at 108. However, there is a split of authority as to whether the unknowing use of perjured testimony can create a denial of due process. In 1938, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that there was no distinction between the two situations, and held that a conviction based on perjured testimony was a denial of due process of law regardless of whether the prosecution knew the testimony was false. Jones v. Kentucky, 97 F.2d 335, 338 (6th Cir.1938). However, the Sixth Circuit later limited Jones to the facts of the case. Burks v. Egeler, 512 F.2d 221, 229 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied 423 U.S. 937, 96 S.Ct. 297, 46 L.Ed.2d 270 (1975). The Burks court held that the introduction of perjured testimony at trial, which is unknown to the prosecutor, is not a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and, thus, was not reviewable on a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 230. The basis for this holding is that the use of perjury, which is not known and is unknowable to the prosecution, does not involve state action. Id. at 225-26. This argument was considered and rejected in Sanders v. Sullivan, supra . In our view, this criticism is unpersuasive. There is no logical reason to limit a due process violation to state action defined as prosecutorial knowledge of perjured testimony or even false testimony by witnesses with some affiliation with a government agency. Such a rule elevates form over substance. It has long been axiomatic that due process requires us to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice. Lisenba v. California , 314 U.S. 219, 236, 62 S.Ct. 280, 290, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941). It is simply intolerable in our view that under no circumstance will due process be violated if a state allows an innocent person to remain incarcerated on the basis of lies. A due process violation must of course have a state action component. We believe that Justice Douglas accurately articulated the appropriate definition that accords with the dictates of due process: a state's failure to act to cure a conviction founded on a credible recantation by an important and principal witness, exhibits sufficient state action to constitute a due process violation. See Durley v. Mayo, 351 U.S. 277, 290-91, 76 S.Ct. 806, 813-14, 100 L.Ed. 1178 (1956). Sanders, 863 F.2d at 224. Kentucky law is in accord with the Sanders case. This issue was addressed in Anderson v. Buchanan, supra . In discussing the import of the Sixth Circuit's opinion in Jones v. Kentucky, supra , we noted: [I]t seems to us the Supreme Court does not go quite so far in its consideration as some of the language of the [Sixth] Circuit Court of Appeals would indicate the courts should go. The Supreme Court's view seems to be that alleged perjured testimony upon which conviction was had must have been by the active conduct or the connivance of the prosecuting officers. Anderson, 168 S.W.2d at 52. Nonetheless, the Anderson court held: that the court in which a conviction was had has discretion to grant the writ [of coram nobis] where it appears that but for the alleged false testimony ... of such a conclusive character that the verdict most probably would not have been rendered and there is a strong probability of miscarriage of justice unless the process be granted. We affirm that it is not enough to merely show that a prosecuting witness has subsequently made contradictory statements or that he is willing to swear that his testimony upon the trial was false, for his later oath is no more binding than his former one. It may be otherwise if the sole witness repudiates his testimony. It is to be emphasized also that obtaining the writ is not a matter of right but the granting of it is a matter of sound judicial discretion to be exercised upon a showing of reasonable certainty. Id. at 53-54 (internal citations omitted). Further, the Anderson court emphasized that the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused is not a necessary subject of the inquiry. The question embraces the genuineness and good faith of the repudiation or newly discovered evidence and the probability that the conviction would not have resulted if the truth had been revealed. Id. at 54. Thus, the integrity of the judicial process was of overriding concern to the Anderson court. Finally, important to the Anderson court's analysis was its affirmation that the writ of coram nobis is part of the Commonwealth's due course of law as protected by Ky. Const.Sec. 14. Id. at 52-53. Thus, we conclude that in the appropriate case the introduction of perjured testimony, which is not known as such by the prosecutor, can result in a violation of the right to due course of law and the right to due process of law as provided by the Kentucky and United States Constitutions. Thus, we hold that a criminal conviction based on perjured testimony can be a reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief pursuant to CR 60.02(f) and subject to the reasonable time limitation of the rule. Of course, the burden remains on the defendant to show both that a reasonable certainty exists as to the falsity of the testimony and that the conviction probably would not have resulted had the truth been known before he can be entitled to such relief. [1] In this case, Garner's conviction for perjury clearly rises to the level of reasonable certainty as to the falsity of his testimony in Spaulding's second trial. However, the materiality of the testimony is not so certain.