Barrett
Barrett v. Lamarque
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
A.A. Lamarque appeals, and Robert Edward Barrett cross-appeals, the district court’s judgment granting in part and denying in part Barrett’s habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse the district court’s grant of the petition with respect to Barrett’s conviction for use of a destructive device, Cal.Penal Code § 12303.3, and affirm the district court’s denial with respect to his conviction for arson, Cal.Penal Code § 451(b).
The district court found Barrett’s due process rights were violated because the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony. See United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir.2003) (“To prevail on a claim based on Mooney-Napue, the petitioner must show that (1) the testimony (or evidence) was actually false, (2) the prosecution knew or should have known that the testimony was actually false, and (3) ... the false testimony was material.”) (citations omitted). We review this legal determination de novo, and the factual findings underlying the determination for clear error. See Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.2002).