Whether the Fifth Circuit's holding that false testimony presented by a government witness at trial that is elicited by the defense on cross-examination need not be corrected by the government, violates this Court's holding in Napue, which provides that, even if the false testimony is not initially solicited by the government, the government has a duty to correct it, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Juan Martinez Pedraza was convicted on the strength of trial testimony by a codefendant who entered into a written cooperation agreement with the government. On direct examination by the prosecutor, the co-defendant falsely testified that his cooperation agreement did not involve a promise from the government to consider his cooperation and to reward the cooperation by filing a motion with the district court to reduce his sentence, and that in any event, a cooperation-based reduction of his sentence would be decided solely by the district court, without any input from the government. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Pedraza's conviction, ruling that when the defense elicits perjury on cross-examination, no material falsehood has occurred under this Court's holding in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), because the government has not itself knowingly presented false testimony. The question presented before this Court is: Whether the Fifth Circuit's holding that false testimony presented by a government witness at trial that is elicited by the defense on cross-examination need not be corrected by the government, violates this Court's holding in Napue, which provides that, even if the false testimony is not initially solicited by the government, the government has a duty to correct it, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution?