Is a defendant deprived of his right to due process of law when he would not have been convicted had perjury not been introduced at his trial?

QUESTION PRESENTED Is a defendant deprived of his right to due process of law when he would not have been convicted had perjury not been introduced at his trial? In this action brought pursuant to 28 United States Code (“U.S.C.”) §2254, the District Court found that the complaining witness, the sole individual other than Petitioner who knew whether a sexual encounter between the two of them was rape or consensual, committed perjury at trial. The District Court also concluded that had the perjury not been admitted at Petitioner’s state-court trial, there was a reasonable likelihood that he would not have been convicted. Nevertheless, the District Court denied relief because there was no evidence that the prosecution knew (or should have known) that the testimony was false. 16a-14a, 15a-16a. The Second Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the District Court that there was no clearly established law of this Court that the New York State court had applied unreasonably. As a result, there was no basis for relief under the deferential standard of review set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). 1a-2a. The question presented is whether a conviction that was obtained based on perjury violates due process, even absent a showing that the prosecution knew or should have known that the testimony was false. i STATEMENT OF