In Grant v. Swarthout, the Ninth Circuit yesterday held in an unpublished memorandum (yes, “unpublished memorandum” is probably redundant) that the California Supreme Court had “unreasonably applied” a U.S. Supreme Court decision in summarily denying the habeas corpus petition of a defendant sentenced to 50 years to life for a 2006 murder.
The high court decision in Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264, 269 held “a State may not knowingly use false evidence, including false testimony, to obtain a tainted conviction.” In Grant, the defendant produced evidence that the prosecution’s star witness had falsely testified to not having received any benefits in return for his testimony. The Ninth Circuit concluded this was enough to entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing.
In July, California’s Supreme Court granted review in a similar case, sending it back to the Court of Appeal that had summarily denied a habeas petition. The Supreme Court directed issuance of an order to show cause “why petitioner is not entitled to relief on the grounds he suffered prejudicial error pursuant to Napue.” (See here.)