Blufford Hayes, Jr. v. Jill Brown, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin

Opinion by Judge THOMAS; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge TALLMAN.

In this case, we consider whether a prosecutor’s knowing presentation of false evidence and failure to correct the record violate a criminal defendant’s due process rights. We conclude that such actions violate due process, and we therefore reverse the district court’s denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

I

This case concerns the 1980 murder of Vinod “Pete” Patel by Blufford Hayes, Jr. Patel was the resident hotel manager of the Rice Motel in Stockton, California. Hayes was staying in Room 15 of the motel with his sister, Barbara Lord. Hayes once resided at the motel himself, but had been evicted when he stopped paying rent. Several days before Patel’s death, Patel had asked the police to arrest Hayes for trespassing because he had broken into his former room. Officers found Hayes in his former room with fresh needle marks on his arm; he admitted to breaking in, but said he intended to pay rent as soon as he could. The police arrested him for tres *975 passing and for being under the influence of a controlled substance.

Hayes returned to the Rice Motel on New Year’s Eve, December…

with whom KLEINFELD, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, join, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in Parts I, II-A, II-B, and III— A of Judge Thomas’s opinion for the court. *989 There are few things more repugnant to the fundamental notions of fairness embodied in due process than a prosecutor allowing false evidence to go uncorrected when it appears. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). In their solemn constitutional obligation “as[] representative^] of the government to protect the integrity of the court and the criminal justice system,” Northern Mariana Islands v. Bowie, 243 F.3d 1109, 1122 (9th Cir.2001), prosecutors have a “special duty commensurate with [their] unique power, to assure that defendants receive fair trials.” United States v. LaPage, 231 F.3d 488, 492 (9th Cir.2000). The majority appropriately rejects the State’s argument that Napue and its progeny prohibit only perjury. The prosecutor’s failure to correct the misimpression left on the jury and the court as to the full scope of the deal offered to secure the testimony of Andrew James, even though the witness himself was ignorant of all benefits he would…

399 F.3d 972 Blufford HAYES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jill BROWN, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, * Respondent-Appellee. No. 99-99030. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued June 6, 2002. Submitted June 14, 2002. Filed August 26, 2002. Opinion Vacated and Rehearing En Banc Granted August 26, 2004. Argued and Re-submitted En Banc October 12, 2004. Filed March 7, 2005. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED David A. Senior, McBreen & Senior, Los Angeles, CA, argued the cause for the petitioner-appellant; Kathleen T. Saenz, McBreen & Senior, Los Angeles, CA, was on the briefs. Mathew Chan, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, argued the cause for the respondent-appellee; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Arnold O. Overoye, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ward A. Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Carlos A. Martinez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-92-00603-GGH P. Before:…