Jackson v. State, 216 Md. App. 347

Jackson was convicted in 1987 of first‑degree murder, first‑degree sexual offense, and use of a handgun; sentences were life, life, and 20 years, respectively.
Kopera, a ballistics expert, testified at trial about the bullet and distance; his credentials were later shown to be false.
Post‑conviction petitions followed; the circuit court denied relief, finding Kopera’s false credentials were merely impeaching and not newly discovered evidence.
In 2011, Jackson filed a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence alleging Kopera’s perjury was newly discovered evidence that could have changed the outcome.
The circuit court held the Kopera misrepresentation was not newly discovered due to due diligence considerations and, even if considered newly discovered, not material to the verdict.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding the evidence was not material and did not create a substantial possibility of a different result.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kopera’s perjury qualifies as newly discovered evidence under § 8-301	Jackson argues the perjury was newly discovered and could not have been found earlier.	State contends the misrepresentation was impeachment and could have been discovered with due diligence before trial.	No; Kopera’s falsity was not newly discovered due to due diligence, and even if newly discovered, not substantial.
If newly discovered, whether Kopera’s misrepresentation created a substantial possibility of a different result	Jackson contends the perjury affected credibility and could have changed the verdict since the jury credited the expert’s testimony.	State argues the evidence was merely impeaching and, viewed with the rest of the record, would not have yielded a different result.	No; the falsity was not material, and the total evidence supported the conviction without Kopera’s testimony.

Matthews v. State, 415 Md. 286 (2010) (treatment of untimely Rule 4-331 motion as actual innocence petition)
Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156 (2011) (petition for writ of actual innocence; final judgment; due process interplay)
Kulbicki v. State, 207 Md. App. 412 (2012) (false testimony about credentials; materiality and impeachment distinction)
Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248 (2004) (standard for substantial or significant possibility of different outcome)
Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637 (2003) (materiality and persuasiveness of newly discovered evidence)
Argyrou v. State, 349 Md. 587 (1998) (threshold for newly discovered evidence and due diligence)
Love v. State, 95 Md. App. 420 (1993) (impeaching vs. merely impeaching evidence standard)