Ex Parte Ghahremani
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 330
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Applicant Ghahremani, age 22, engaged in an online relationship with L.S., then 13, leading to in-person sexual contact after consuming alcohol and Xanax.
- At trial (2006), L.S. and J.R., then 14, testified to non-consensual sex; the jury found Ghahremani guilty of sexual assault of J.R. and aggravated sexual assault of L.S.; sentences imposed were up to 28 years for L.S. and 20 years for J.R.
- L.S.’s parents testified during punishment about long-term harm and costly treatments; defense presented no punishment evidence.
- During habeas, a July 2005 police report in a “Work Product” folder suggested L.S. had a relationship with a 25-year-old man (Davis) and possible drug involvement, but the report was not disclosed to Ghahremani.
- August 2005 police reports revealed L.S. ran away, used multiple drugs, and a laboratory finding of blood/semen in vaginal swabs; these reports were not initially disclosed to Ghahremani.
- The convicting court found suppression of the July report violated Brady and that the State elicited testimony misleadingly attributing all of L.S.’s treatment to Ghahremani’s assault, recommending a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there false testimony used at trial or punishment? | Ghahremani asserts the State knowingly used false testimony. | State contends testimony was not knowingly false or material. | Yes; false testimony was knowingly used and material to punishment. |
| Did the State suppress favorable evidence (Brady)? | Ghahremani claims suppression of July report deprived him of exculpatory material. | State argues the report was not exculpatory or improperly suppressed. | Yes; suppression violated Brady. |
| Is the false testimony material to Ghahremani's sentences? | Ghahremani argues misleading testimony affected sentences in both counts. | State contends impact was limited or outweighed by other evidence. | Yes; there was a reasonable likelihood the false testimony affected sentences. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence and false testimony)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (due process when witness testimony is false or knowingly false)
- Ex parte Fierro, 934 S.W.2d 370 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996) (preponderance/harmless-error framework for knowing false testimony on habeas)
- Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768 (Tex.Cr.App. 2009) (unknowing false testimony subject to preponderance standard on habeas)
- Agurs v. United States, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (unknown-bearing on suppression/false testimony and materiality)