Opinion ID: 2233526
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Were Todden's Due Process Rights Violated by the State's Recourse to Allegedly False Testimony?[1]

Text: It is, of course, a violation of due process for the prosecution to suppress evidence favorable to the accused if that evidence is material to guilt or punishment, irrespective of good faith. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, 218 (1963). This rule applies in three situations: (1) where evidence is discovered after trial that the prosecution's case included perjured testimony, of which the prosecution was aware, or should have been aware; (2) where the prosecution fails to comply with the accused's pretrial request for specific evidence; and (3) where the prosecution fails to comply with the accused's general request for  Brady material. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103-07, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397-99, 49 L.Ed.2d 342, 349-52 (1976). Todden here attempts to bring his case within the first Agurs situation. Stated in the light most favorable to him, Todden's argument is that agent Pontious' testimony that he found the bloody sock in Todden's bedroom was false, that the prosecution knew or should have known it was false, and that there is a reasonable likelihood this false testimony affected the jury. In Hamann v. State, 324 N.W.2d 906 (Iowa 1982), we made clear that the threshold for invoking the aid of Brady was high. We set out five considerations relevant to the first Agurs situation: (1) The prosecution must either introduce or fail to correct false testimony; (2) The prosecution must give false testimony at trial; (3) The prosecution must know the perjured testimony is false; (4) The testimony must be material; and (5) Defendant waives his right on postconviction to complain of perjured testimony if he had reason to know such testimony was being used at trial. Id. at 909-10. Todden's efforts to bring his case within the first Agurs situation fail for several reasons. First, he has not carried his burden to establish that Pontious' trial testimony was false. Pontious testified he found the seized evidence in Todden's bedroom. He did not testify it was found in the south west bedroom; in fact, the trial diagram used placed it in the south east bedroom containing the water bed and chest of drawers. At trial the defense never disputed the testimony that the seized items were found in Todden's bedroom at the time Pontious took possession of them. There was substantial evidence to support the postconviction court's finding that Pontious merely mislabeled the evidence tags, receipt and search warrant summary. The question in this case is not, as it was in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); or Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), whether clearly false testimony warrants a new trial, but whether the testimony was false. That question being answered in the negative, our inquiry might end. A second principle, however, supports our conclusion. Even assuming Pontious' testimony was false, it is apparent that Todden waived his right to complain. In Hamann, 324 N.W.2d at 915, we wrote: [W]here defendant in a criminal case has reason to know the State has employed false testimony, he must act to impeach the witness at trial. He will not be permitted to gamble on an acquittal and withhold the impeaching evidence for use in a subsequent proceeding. See United States v. LeRoy, 687 F.2d 610, 618 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1174, 103 S.Ct. 823, 74 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983) (Evidence is not `suppressed' if the defendant either knew or should have known of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence.) (citations omitted). Here the defense had unimpeded access to everything in the prosecutor's file. The document that ultimately alerted the defense to the discrepancy at issue here was the evidence receipt left at Todden's residence. Before trial, Todden's counsel examined prosecution files and noted in writing that certain evidence was seized from the south west bedroom. There is a compelling inference that counsel understandably did not appreciate the significance of this because in discussing the evidence with Todden the latter did not dispute the fact that the evidence was found in his bedroom. Thus Todden's contention also falls within the Hamann waiver rule. We find no merit in his first asserted error.