Feanyichi E. Uvukansi v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

The state courts found that the trial prosecutor knowingly presented and failed to correct perjured testimony that the only eyewitness to identify petitioner as one of the shooters in a capital murder had not been promised anything for his testimony. Yet the courts concluded that petitioner had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the perjured testimony was “material,” as it concerned the witness’s credibility rather than his identification. On federal habeas corpus review, the Fifth Circuit concluded that this Court has not clearly established which party has the burden of proof on the materiality of perjured testimony and thus held that the state court decision was not contrary to and did not involve an unreasonable application of this Court’s precedent. The questions presented are: I. Whether the state courts—by requiring petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the prosecution’s knowing presentation of and failure to correct perjured testimony affected the verdict— rendered a decision that was contrary to and unreasonably applied this Court’s clearly established precedent, which requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perjured testimony did not affect the verdict. II. Whether the state courts—by concluding that the prosecution’s knowing presentation of and failure to correct perjured testimony was not material because the jury could