Thompson v. United States, 2012 WL 2161116

Thompson was convicted at a jury trial of carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.
During trial, the government learned that a witness’s preliminary-hearing testimony had been inaccurate but did not disclose this until after Thompson called the witness in his defense.
The defense impeached the witness with the preliminary-hearing transcript, and the witness explained the prior testimony’s inaccuracy on cross-examination.
The government questioned Evans about the discrepancy and revealed that Evans’s earlier testimony related to a different case; Evans then corrected his testimony on the record.
The trial court denied Thompson’s motion for a mistrial, and Thompson challenged whether the Napue duty to correct false testimony was satisfied and whether any delay in disclosure prejudiced the defense.
The court ultimately affirmed, declining to reverse for lack of substantial prejudice despite the delayed disclosure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Napue duty to correct false testimony was satisfied?	Thompson argues government failed to correct false testimony promptly.	Thompson contends delayed correction prejudiced defense strategy.	No reversible error; correction occurred and prejudice not substantial.
Duty to disclose falsity before trial?	Government should have disclosed the falsity earlier.	Advance disclosure not required here; correction before the jury sufficed.	We assume error occurred but not reversible without substantial prejudice.
Impact on trial strategy prejudice standard?	Delayed disclosure impaired Thompson’s strategic decisions.	Defense used the inconsistency effectively; no substantial prejudice.	Not substantially prejudicial; mistrial not warranted.
Mistrial denial proper?	Mistrial should have been granted due to ambush-like disclosure.	Mistrial is an extreme remedy; record supports denial.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; affirmed.

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (prosecution may not use or allow false testimony to go uncorrected)
Woodall v. United States, 842 A.2d 690 (D.C. 2004) (government must correct false or misleading testimony)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (due process concerns with false testimony)
United States v. Meinster, 619 F.2d 1041 (4th Cir. 1980) (truth-seeking function of trial process)
Coleman v. Burnett, 477 F.2d 1187 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (due process and probable cause considerations)
Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2006) (informing defense of key witness testimony changes)
Miller v. United States, 14 A.3d 1094 (D.C. 2011) (timely disclosure under Napue/Brady standards)
Edelen v. United States, 627 A.2d 968 (D.C. 1993) (pretrial preparation and disclosure practicality)
Perez v. United States, 968 A.2d 39 (D.C. 2009) (timely disclosure under Brady to avoid prejudice)
Bryan v. United States, 836 A.2d 581 (D.C. 2003) (context of prosecutorial disclosure and credibility)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless error considerations in disclosure scenarios)