Adam Clayton Zilm v. Oklahoma

Petitioner was convicted of child sex abuse. However, the minor complaining witness recanted the allegation, more than once under oath and without prompting, and the state district court found as a matter of fact that state actors had coerced her pretrial testimony at the preliminary examination. The State nevertheless used this coerced testimony at trial against Zilm. On appeal, Zilm argued that the State violated his Due Process rights by using false testimony to convict him under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected this claim on the basis that Zilm had not shown that the testimony was “false.” Zilm petitioned that court for rehearing, asking if he was required to show falsity by a preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt, or some other legal standard. The lower appellate court declined to answer this legal question. The questions presented is:

1. What is the burden of proof for the accused to show an error under Napue?

2. Did Zilm meet this burden?