Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Due Process Clause is violated when the prosecution relies on material, perjured testimony to secure a conviction but did not know the testimony was perjured until after the trial
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented, which has divided fourteen federal courts of appeal and state high courts, is: Whether the Due Process Clause is violated when the prosecution relies on material, perjured testimony to secure a conviction but did not know the testimony was perjured until after the trial, as six courts have held, or whether the prosecution’s contemporaneous knowledge of the perjured testimony is required, as eight courts have held. (i)
2020-06-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-17
Reply of petitioner Charles Farrar filed. (Distributed)
2020-06-03
Brief of respondents Dean Williams, et al. in opposition filed.
2020-05-04
Response Requested. (Due June 3, 2020)
2020-04-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.
2020-04-22
Waiver of right of respondent Dean Williams, et al. to respond filed.
2020-03-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 1, 2020.
2020-02-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 2, 2020 to May 1, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-01-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 2, 2020)
2019-11-26
Application (19A587) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until January 27, 2020.
2019-11-13
Application (19A587) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 27, 2019 to January 26, 2020, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.