311:, which affirmed the denial of Napue's petition with two justices dissenting. The Supreme Court of Illinois disagreed with the trial court and found that the Assistant State's Attorney had promised Hamer a recommendation for sentence reduction, and that the Assistant State's Attorney knew that Hamer was lying by testifying to the contrary. However, it held that because a public defender had testified that he would try to reduce Hamer's sentence, the jury was aware that Hamer would be trying to reduce his sentence, and that accordingly, Hamer was not entitled to relief.
304:
unconstitutional. The trial court held a hearing at which the
Assistant State's Attorney testified that he had only promised to help Hamer if Hamer's assertion that he was just a reluctant participant in the murder was true. The Assistant State's Attorney went on to testify that there was no promise to reduce Hamer's sentence if Hamer testified, and that his petition to lower Hamer's sentence used language that " should not have used". On the basis of the Assistant State's Attorney's testimony, the trial court denied the petition to overturn Napue's conviction.
341:
of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of the defendant. The Court further held that the false testimony must be corrected by the prosecution whether the prosecutor actively sought false testimony or simply allows it to occur. The Court reiterated that prosecutors have a duty to seek to correct false testimony when it occurs in order for a trial to be fair, and held that any false testimony allowed by the prosecutor that may affect the outcome of trial creates a violation of due process rights protected by the
31:
300:
effectuated" if he agreed to cooperate by testifying against Napue and several other defendants. The petition referred to the agreement to seek a lower sentence for Hamer as a "compact entered into between the duly authorized representatives of the State of
Illinois and George Hamer", and noted that Hamer testified only after being given "definite assurance" of a recommendation for a lower sentence.
320:
576:
299:
After Napue's conviction, the
Assistant State's Attorney who prosecuted the murder filed a petition to reduce Hamer's sentence. In the petition, the Assistant State's Attorney wrote that he had "promised" to Hamer that "a recommendation for a reduction of his sentence would be made and, if possible,
340:
delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. The Court held that because the credibility of a witness can often be critical in the jury's verdict a prosecutor's knowing failure to correct false testimony violates the
Fourteenth Amendment even when the testimony presented affects only the credibility
295:
Henry Napue was tried in an
Illinois state court on charges of murder. At his trial, the prosecution's primary witness, George Hamer, who was serving a 199-year sentence for the same murder, testified that the prosecution had not offered any reduction of sentence or other reward for his testimony.
348:
Applying those standards to Napue's case, the Court held that because the prosecution knowingly failed to correct false testimony made by its witness that "may have had an effect on the outcome of the trial", Napue's due process rights had been violated. The Court accordingly reversed Napue's
303:
Napue subsequently filed a post-conviction petition asking for reversal of his conviction, arguing that Hamer's testimony that he was not promised a lower sentence was false, and that
Assistant State's Attorney's knowing failure to correct Hamer's statement rendered Napue's conviction
114:
The knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case, including testimony affecting only the credibility of a witness and which does not directly touch on the innocence or guilt of a defendant, violates the
266:
has repeatedly addressed whether the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when prosecutors knowingly use false testimony in a criminal trial. In 1935, the Supreme Court briefly wrote in
1419:
342:
251:
230:
120:
795:
767:
563:
543:
476:
427:
72:
872:
296:
The prosecutor did not dispute or otherwise correct Hamer's testimony. Based primarily on Hamer's testimony, Napue was convicted and sentenced to 199 years in prison.
882:
663:"Taking a Closer Look at Prosecutorial Misconduct: The Ninth Circuit's Materiality Analysis in Hayes v. Brown and Its Implications for Wrongful Convictions"
1414:
273:
that prosecutors violate the Due
Process Clause if they knowingly present perjured testimony. The Court expanded on its decision in 1957 in the case
1424:
279:, in which it held that a prosecutor's neglect to correct false testimony is equivalent to knowingly presenting perjured testimony. However, in
395:
claims, holding: "A new trial is required if the false testimony could in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury".
865:
233:, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of the defendant.
454:
Lynd, Staughton (Spring 2008). "Napue
Nightmares: Perjured Testimony in Trials Following the 1993 Lucasville, Ohio, Prison Uprising".
263:
222:
35:
858:
170:
975:
1347:
1169:
225:
case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the
1218:
308:
1363:
1311:
919:
1097:
1206:
1105:
1075:
833:
762:
503:"A Lie is a Lie: An Argument for Strict Protection Against a Prosecutor's Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony"
379:
182:
1015:
943:
383:
that it is a due process violation if a prosecutor fails to correct perjured testimony if the prosecutor's
1258:
1226:
1089:
927:
178:
1137:
1129:
991:
1282:
1145:
1113:
1023:
967:
959:
799:
771:
567:
547:
480:
431:
64:
1331:
1323:
1007:
999:
715:"New Trial Granted because of Prosecution's Negligent Failure to Disclose Evidence Useful to Defense".
373:, a landmark case in which the Court held that Due Process Clause requires prosecutors to disclose all
269:
1371:
1234:
275:
1161:
983:
374:
1355:
1339:
502:
258:
or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
815:
1387:
1290:
1274:
1153:
951:
885:
806:
732:
247:
226:
158:
116:
824:
100:
Petition for post-conviction relief denied (Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois). Affirmed
1250:
1242:
1067:
850:
697:
369:
284:
283:, the Court refrained from setting a specific standard regarding when false testimony becomes
154:
1266:
1121:
1052:
911:
899:
724:
358:
774:
662:
1031:
570:
434:
190:
534:"Q. Have I promised you that I would recommend any reduction of sentence to anybody?
483:
1408:
1185:
935:
685:
580:
387:
was aware of the lie, even if the individual prosecutor in the courtroom was not. In
1177:
166:
67:
337:
323:
138:
620:
332:
146:
83:
701:
79:
526:"Q. Did anybody give you a reward or promise you a reward for testifying?
319:
736:
842:
728:
531:
After cross-examination, on redirect, the testimony was reinforced:
686:"Brady Reconstructed: An Overdue Expansion of Rights and Remedies"
318:
579:
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
330:
Napue asked the
Supreme Court to review the case, which granted
1309:
1204:
1050:
897:
854:
30:
391:, the Court also decided the threshold for materiality for
523:
The following colloquy took place on direct examination:
104:
Napue v. People, 13 Ill. 2d 566, 150 N. E. 2d 613 (1958).
343:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
252:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
231:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
121:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
1420:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
203:
198:
127:
108:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
377:to the defendant. In 1972, the Court decided in
777: (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted).
256:
866:
528:"A. There ain't nobody promised me anything."
496:
494:
492:
8:
287:enough to warrant reversal of a conviction.
621:"Champion – Can Prosecutors Buy Testimony?"
449:
447:
445:
443:
1306:
1201:
1047:
894:
873:
859:
851:
20:
507:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
404:
591:
589:
367:, in 1963, the Supreme Court decided
18:1959 United States Supreme Court case
7:
976:County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
54:Henry Napue, Petitioner, v. Illinois
1348:New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson
326:delivered the opinion of the Court
264:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1415:United States Supreme Court cases
802:264 (1959) is available from:
667:Golden Gate University Law Review
574:
29:
1425:1959 in United States case law
1:
456:Capital University Law Review
221:, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a
1170:Youngblood v. West Virginia
223:United States Supreme Court
1441:
843:Oyez (oral argument audio)
356:
291:Proceedings in state court
1364:Mesarosh v. United States
1318:
1305:
1213:
1200:
1062:
1046:
906:
893:
309:Supreme Court of Illinois
132:
113:
28:
1312:Prosecutorial misconduct
920:Holland v. United States
684:Leonard, Sosnov (2014).
501:DeVore, Charlie (2011).
1219:Bishop v. United States
1106:United States v. Bagley
1098:California v. Trombetta
1076:Giglio v. United States
763:Giglio v. United States
380:Giglio v. United States
353:Subsequent developments
1227:Dusky v. United States
1090:United States v. Agurs
928:Leary v. United States
661:Lynn, Damiano (2006).
651:, 358 U.S. 919 (1958).
610:, 360 U.S. at 267–268.
538:
530:
327:
307:Napue appealed to the
260:
179:William J. Brennan Jr.
1283:Sell v. United States
1146:United States v. Ruiz
1114:Arizona v. Youngblood
1016:Sullivan v. Louisiana
960:Patterson v. New York
944:Cool v. United States
690:New Mexico Law Review
532:
524:
322:
45:Decided June 15, 1959
43:Argued April 30, 1959
1259:Medina v. California
984:Sandstrom v. Montana
723:(3): 526–531. 1962.
375:exculpatory evidence
324:Chief Justice Warren
183:Charles E. Whittaker
1138:Strickler v. Greene
1130:Wood v. Bartholomew
992:Jackson v. Virginia
834:Library of Congress
717:Columbia Law Review
1388:McDonough v. Smith
1291:Indiana v. Edwards
1275:Cooper v. Oklahoma
1154:Illinois v. Fisher
1024:Victor v. Nebraska
968:Taylor v. Kentucky
952:Mullaney v. Wilbur
752:, 360 U.S. at 272.
598:, 360 U.S. at 267.
536:"A. You did not."
328:
248:Due Process Clause
227:Due Process Clause
207:Warren, joined by
159:William O. Douglas
143:Associate Justices
117:Due Process Clause
78:79 S. Ct. 1173; 3
1402:
1401:
1398:
1397:
1380:Napue v. Illinois
1332:Hysler v. Florida
1324:Mooney v. Holohan
1301:
1300:
1251:Riggins v. Nevada
1243:Drope v. Missouri
1207:Mental competence
1196:
1195:
1083:Moore v. Illinois
1068:Brady v. Maryland
1042:
1041:
1008:Cage v. Louisiana
1000:Murray v. Carrier
792:Napue v. Illinois
645:Napue v. Illinois
560:Napue v. Illinois
540:Napue v. Illinois
424:Mooney v. Holohan
370:Brady v. Maryland
270:Mooney v. Holohan
218:Napue v. Illinois
214:
213:
171:John M. Harlan II
155:Felix Frankfurter
24:Napue v. Illinois
1432:
1372:Alcorta v. Texas
1307:
1267:Godinez v. Moran
1235:Pate v. Robinson
1202:
1122:Kyles v. Whitley
1048:
912:Leland v. Oregon
900:Reasonable doubt
895:
875:
868:
861:
852:
847:
841:
838:
832:
829:
823:
820:
814:
811:
805:
778:
759:
753:
747:
741:
740:
712:
706:
705:
681:
675:
674:
658:
652:
642:
636:
635:
633:
631:
617:
611:
605:
599:
593:
584:
578:
577:
557:
551:
521:
515:
514:
498:
487:
473:Alcorta v. Texas
470:
464:
463:
451:
438:
421:
415:
414:amend. XIV, § 1.
413:
409:
359:Brady disclosure
336:. Chief Justice
276:Alcorta v. Texas
128:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
1440:
1439:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1394:
1314:
1297:
1209:
1192:
1162:Banks v. Dretke
1058:
1038:
902:
889:
879:
845:
839:
836:
830:
827:
821:
818:
812:
809:
803:
787:
782:
781:
760:
756:
748:
744:
729:10.2307/1120057
714:
713:
709:
683:
682:
678:
660:
659:
655:
643:
639:
629:
627:
619:
618:
614:
606:
602:
594:
587:
575:
558:
554:
550:264 (1959).
535:
527:
522:
518:
500:
499:
490:
471:
467:
453:
452:
441:
422:
418:
411:
410:
406:
401:
361:
355:
317:
293:
244:
239:
181:
169:
157:
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1438:
1436:
1428:
1427:
1422:
1417:
1407:
1406:
1400:
1399:
1396:
1395:
1393:
1392:
1384:
1376:
1368:
1360:
1356:White v. Ragen
1352:
1344:
1340:Pyle v. Kansas
1336:
1328:
1319:
1316:
1315:
1310:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1296:
1295:
1287:
1279:
1271:
1263:
1255:
1247:
1239:
1231:
1223:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1205:
1198:
1197:
1194:
1193:
1191:
1190:
1182:
1174:
1166:
1158:
1150:
1142:
1134:
1126:
1118:
1110:
1102:
1094:
1086:
1080:
1072:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1051:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1037:
1036:
1032:Schlup v. Delo
1028:
1020:
1012:
1004:
996:
988:
980:
972:
964:
956:
948:
940:
932:
924:
916:
907:
904:
903:
898:
891:
890:
881:United States
880:
878:
877:
870:
863:
855:
849:
848:
816:Google Scholar
786:
785:External links
783:
780:
779:
754:
742:
707:
676:
653:
637:
612:
600:
585:
552:
516:
488:
465:
439:
416:
403:
402:
400:
397:
357:Main article:
354:
351:
316:
313:
292:
289:
243:
242:Prior case law
240:
238:
235:
212:
211:
205:
201:
200:
196:
195:
194:
193:
191:Potter Stewart
144:
141:
136:
130:
129:
125:
124:
111:
110:
106:
105:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1437:
1426:
1423:
1421:
1418:
1416:
1413:
1412:
1410:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1333:
1329:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1304:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1280:
1277:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1261:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1199:
1188:
1187:
1186:Smith v. Cain
1183:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1055:
1049:
1045:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1002:
1001:
997:
994:
993:
989:
986:
985:
981:
978:
977:
973:
970:
969:
965:
962:
961:
957:
954:
953:
949:
946:
945:
941:
938:
937:
936:In re Winship
933:
930:
929:
925:
922:
921:
917:
914:
913:
909:
908:
905:
901:
896:
892:
887:
884:
876:
871:
869:
864:
862:
857:
856:
853:
844:
835:
826:
817:
808:
807:CourtListener
801:
797:
793:
789:
788:
784:
776:
773:
769:
765:
764:
758:
755:
751:
746:
743:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
711:
708:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
680:
677:
673:(1): 191–218.
672:
668:
664:
657:
654:
650:
649:cert. granted
646:
641:
638:
626:
625:www.nacdl.org
622:
616:
613:
609:
604:
601:
597:
592:
590:
586:
582:
581:public domain
573: (1959).
572:
569:
565:
561:
556:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
529:
520:
517:
512:
508:
504:
497:
495:
493:
489:
485:
482:
478:
474:
469:
466:
461:
457:
450:
448:
446:
444:
440:
436:
433:
429:
425:
420:
417:
408:
405:
398:
396:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
376:
372:
371:
366:
360:
352:
350:
346:
344:
339:
335:
334:
325:
321:
315:Supreme Court
314:
312:
310:
305:
301:
297:
290:
288:
286:
282:
278:
277:
272:
271:
265:
259:
255:
253:
249:
241:
236:
234:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
210:
206:
202:
197:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
145:
142:
140:
137:
135:Chief Justice
134:
133:
131:
126:
122:
118:
112:
107:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1386:
1379:
1378:
1370:
1362:
1354:
1346:
1338:
1330:
1322:
1289:
1281:
1273:
1265:
1257:
1249:
1241:
1233:
1225:
1217:
1184:
1178:Cone v. Bell
1176:
1168:
1160:
1152:
1144:
1136:
1128:
1120:
1112:
1104:
1096:
1088:
1082:
1074:
1066:
1053:
1030:
1022:
1014:
1006:
998:
990:
982:
974:
966:
958:
950:
942:
934:
926:
918:
910:
791:
761:
757:
749:
745:
720:
716:
710:
693:
689:
679:
670:
666:
656:
648:
644:
640:
628:. Retrieved
624:
615:
607:
603:
595:
559:
555:
539:
533:
525:
519:
510:
506:
472:
468:
459:
455:
437: (1935).
423:
419:
407:
392:
388:
384:
378:
368:
364:
362:
349:conviction.
347:
331:
329:
306:
302:
298:
294:
280:
274:
268:
261:
257:
245:
217:
216:
215:
208:
199:Case opinion
186:
174:
167:Tom C. Clark
162:
150:
101:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
886:due process
486: (1957)
412:U.S. Const.
338:Earl Warren
139:Earl Warren
82:1217; 1959
1409:Categories
1056:disclosure
630:August 11,
399:References
333:certiorari
254:provides:
237:Background
147:Hugo Black
84:U.S. LEXIS
702:0028-6214
209:unanimous
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
888:case law
883:criminal
790:Text of
775:150, 154
285:material
204:Majority
102:sub nom.
737:1120057
281:Alcorta
250:of the
229:of the
119:of the
109:Holding
1391:(2019)
1383:(1959)
1375:(1957)
1367:(1956)
1359:(1945)
1351:(1943)
1343:(1942)
1335:(1942)
1327:(1935)
1294:(2008)
1286:(2003)
1278:(1996)
1270:(1993)
1262:(1992)
1254:(1992)
1246:(1975)
1238:(1966)
1230:(1960)
1222:(1956)
1189:(2012)
1181:(2009)
1173:(2006)
1165:(2004)
1157:(2004)
1149:(2002)
1141:(1999)
1133:(1995)
1125:(1995)
1117:(1988)
1109:(1985)
1101:(1984)
1093:(1976)
1085:(1972)
1079:(1972)
1071:(1963)
1035:(1995)
1027:(1994)
1019:(1993)
1011:(1990)
1003:(1986)
995:(1979)
987:(1979)
979:(1979)
971:(1978)
963:(1977)
955:(1975)
947:(1972)
939:(1970)
931:(1969)
923:(1954)
915:(1952)
846:
840:
837:
831:
828:
825:Justia
822:
819:
813:
810:
804:
766:,
735:
700:
562:,
542:,
475:,
462:: 559.
426:,
389:Giglio
385:office
363:After
189:
187:·
185:
177:
175:·
173:
165:
163:·
161:
153:
151:·
149:
1054:Brady
798:
770:
750:Napue
733:JSTOR
696:(1).
608:Napue
596:Napue
566:
546:
479:
430:
393:Napue
365:Napue
97:Prior
800:U.S.
772:U.S.
698:ISSN
632:2018
568:U.S.
548:U.S.
513:(2).
481:U.S.
432:U.S.
262:The
246:The
73:more
65:U.S.
63:360
796:360
768:405
725:doi
571:264
564:360
544:360
511:101
477:355
435:103
428:294
86:811
68:264
1411::
794:,
731:.
721:62
719:.
694:45
692:.
688:.
671:37
669:.
665:.
647:,
623:.
588:^
509:.
505:.
491:^
484:28
460:36
458:.
442:^
345:.
874:e
867:t
860:v
739:.
727::
704:.
634:.
583:.
123:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
