Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealhearingtrialtestimonyhabeas corpusdue processprosecutorcredibility
appealtrialtestimonyhabeas corpusdue processprosecutorcredibility

Related Cases

Haynes v. Cain, 298 F.3d 375
View Case »
Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc., 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 442, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9123, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,454
View Case »
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 161 L.Ed.2d 876, 73 USLW 4343, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,106, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4301, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5868, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 303
View Case »
Townsend v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1778, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2419
View Case »
Peterson v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 792 F.3d 789, 92 Fed.R.Serv.3d 249, 61 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 63
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sanders v. Sullivan, 863 F.2d 218, 57 USLW 2363

Facts

Walter Sanders was convicted of manslaughter and robbery based on the testimony of two principal witnesses, Carmelo Perez and Irma Semiday. After the trial, Perez recanted his testimony, claiming he had perjured himself to protect Semiday, who he asserted was the actual shooter. Sanders filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that his conviction was based on this false testimony, which led to the evidentiary hearing where Perez reiterated his recantation.

Petitioner Walter Sanders appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Motley, J.) denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 701 F.Supp. 1000 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Petitioner sought review of his New York state convictions for manslaughter in the second degree, robbery in the first and second degrees, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, arising from the shooting of Omar Sabir, a/k/a Bruce Thomas, during the robbery of a drug dealer, Carmelo Perez.

Issue

Did the state violate Sanders's due process rights by allowing his conviction to stand despite credible recantation of material testimony?

The Court of Appeals, Irving R. Kaufman, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) although habeas corpus petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies with regard to his claim that his conviction was obtained through allegedly perjured testimony thus violating due process, remand to state court was not required, where state did not assert lack of exhaustion as defense to petitioner's claim, and (2) due process violation occurs if state leaves conviction in place after credible recantation of material testimony.

Rule

A due process violation occurs if a state leaves a conviction in place after credible recantation of material testimony, even if the prosecution was not aware of the perjury.

In her view however, perjured testimony, without more, does not rise to the level of a constitutional defect.

Analysis

The court analyzed the implications of allowing a conviction to remain after a credible recantation, emphasizing that the integrity of the judicial process requires that convictions based on false testimony must be addressed. The court noted that the failure to act on credible recantation could undermine public confidence in the justice system.

In our view however, it is indeed another matter when a credible recantation of the testimony in question would most likely change the outcome of the trial and a state leaves the conviction in place.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition in part but remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the credibility of Perez's recantation.

Affirmed in part, and remanded.

Who won?

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York prevailed in the initial dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, as the court found no prosecutorial knowledge of perjury.

Judge Motley found that petitioner had failed to demonstrate prosecutorial knowledge of the alleged perjury, she considered it unnecessary to determine the credibility of Perez's recantation.

You must be