Opinion ID: 1272426
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subornation of perjury and failure to correct McFarland's false testimony

Text: At trial, Marin asked McFarland, And is it true that no one promised you anything in exchange for your testimony against Mr. Jackson? McFarland answered, Yes, that's right. In light of Marin's promise to help McFarland serve out his sentence closer to his family, this testimony was false. Moreover, Marin knew that the testimony was false because he himself had made the promise; nevertheless, he failed to correct the perjury. The Supreme Court has long held that a conviction obtained using knowingly perjured testimony violates due process. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935). In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), the Court made clear that this prohibition against the use of false testimony applies even when the testimony in question was relevant only to the witness's credibility. Id. at 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173. A claim under Napue will succeed when (1) the testimony (or evidence) was actually false, (2) the prosecution knew or should have known that the testimony was actually false, and (3) the false testimony was material. Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972, 984 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Again, the first two elements are undoubtedly met here, so the only question is whether McFarland's perjured testimony was material. As in the Brady context, the basic question is `whether . . . [the defendant] received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.' Hall v. Dir. of Corr., 343 F.3d 976, 983-84 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (considering a Napue claim) (quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (considering a Brady claim)). Because each additional Napue and Brady violation further undermines our confidence in the decision-making process, we analyze the claims collectively, Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436, 115 S.Ct. 1555, and proceed to consider the other asserted prosecutorial violations.