891 F.3d 224
5th Cir.2018Background
- Victim C.C., who lived with her grandmother and Albert Pierre, testified at trial that Pierre repeatedly raped her beginning when she was six; she said she was not "sexually active" aside from Pierre's abuse.
- Pierre was convicted of aggravated rape of a child under thirteen and sentenced to life without parole; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Over a year after trial, C.C. disclosed that another adult, Michael Percle, also had molested her during overlapping periods; the State investigated but did not charge Percle.
- Pierre sought state post-conviction relief alleging C.C. recanted or had perjured herself; state courts diverged, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, finding no state actor knew C.C.'s trial testimony was false.
- Pierre filed for federal habeas relief arguing due process/Napue/Brady violations based on the alleged false testimony and delayed disclosure; the magistrate judge recommended denial, but the district court granted relief despite AEDPA and circuit precedent.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding AEDPA bars relief because no Supreme Court precedent establishes that the State’s unwitting use of false testimony violates due process, and the State did not know the testimony was false.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction violates due process when partly based on false testimony even if the State lacked knowledge of the falsity | Pierre: Due process violated; State’s 16-month delay in disclosing other-abuser allegations and victim’s post-trial disclosure deprived him of a fair trial | State: Due process/Napue/Brady require government knowledge of falsity; Louisiana courts found State unaware of Percle allegations at trial | Denied under AEDPA: no clearly established Supreme Court precedent holding unwitting use of false testimony violates due process; State did not know testimony was false so no Napue/Brady violation |
| Whether Louisiana Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law under AEDPA | Pierre: State court unreasonably applied federal due process principles by denying relief | State: State court decisions consistent with Supreme Court precedent and Fifth Circuit law requiring governmental knowledge | Held: Not unreasonable; AEDPA deference requires a Supreme Court holding, which is absent |
| Whether district court properly granted habeas relief despite AEDPA | Pierre: District court granted relief as warranted | State: District court ignored AEDPA and controlling precedent (including Kinsel) | Held: Reversed; district court erred by granting relief without citing controlling Supreme Court/Fifth Circuit precedent |
| Whether stay pending appeal or release conditions were properly handled | Pierre: Relief ordered without extended stay; district court required retrial or release | State: District court should have stayed judgment and could rely on Rule 23 standards to keep petitioner in custody | Held: Concurring opinion criticized district court for refusing reasonable stay; appellate reversal moots stay discussion but faulted district court’s handling |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecution’s knowing use of false testimony violates due process)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference; relief only where no fairminded jurists could disagree)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) ("clearly established law" means Supreme Court holdings)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (limits on federal habeas relief under AEDPA)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (state court may decline to apply rule not squarely established by Supreme Court)
- Kinsel v. Cain, 647 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2011) (perjured testimony claim fails absent prosecution knowledge)
- Kutzner v. Cockrell, 303 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2002) (due process not implicated without prosecution’s knowledge of falsity)