Opinion ID: 585758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Use of Perjured Testimony at Trial by Government

Text: 18 Walgren also claims that his conviction should be reversed or he should be granted a new trial because the government made knowing use of perjured testimony. Denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hard v. Burlington N.R.R., 812 F.2d 482, 483 (9th Cir.1987). 19 Walgren claims that knowing use may be inferred from the undisclosed evidence before the court. This court has said that the conviction should be set aside on this basis if there is any reasonable likelihood that this evidence could have affected the judgment of the jury. Walgren, 885 F.2d at 1427 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Perjured testimony is material  'unless failure to disclose it would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'  Id. (citation omitted). But first the court must be reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false. United States v. Macklin, 561 F.2d 958, 961 (D.C.Cir.), (quoting Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87 (7th Cir.1928)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 959 (1977). Walgren bears the burden of establishing the grounds for his motion for a new trial. Walgren, 885 F.2d 1417, 1427-28. 20 The district court properly denied the motion because it was not reasonably well satisfied that the testimony of the agents was false, and its findings that there had been no perjury were not clearly erroneous. In addition, there was no reasonable likelihood that the evidence in question could have affected the judgment of the jury. We conclude that the district court did not err. 21