Tony Goodrum v. Cynthia Tampkins, 19-56239

Goodrum appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition and request for an evidentiary hearing, arguing the State committed a Napue violation.
At trial witness Howard Herring testified (or was said to have testified) that he saw the victim holding a pipe during the shooting; Goodrum claims that testimony was false and that the prosecutor knew it.
Goodrum alternatively alleged the prosecutor made knowingly false statements at a pretrial hearing about Herring’s whereabouts.
The trial record included medical and forensic evidence indicating the victim would no longer have been a threat by the time Goodrum fired the second shot.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the Napue claim de novo because the state court applied a stricter standard than Napue allows, and reviewed the denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion.
The court held the alleged false trial testimony and any false pretrial statements were not material to the verdict, and an evidentiary hearing would have been futile; it affirmed the denial of relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State knowingly presented false trial testimony (Herring saw a pipe) in violation of Napue	Goodrum: Herring’s testimony was false and the prosecutor knew it, undermining the verdict	State: Even if testimony were false, it wasn’t material given other evidence showing no threat at time of second shot	Court: Not a Napue violation; petitioner failed to show materiality
Whether the State made knowingly false statements at a pretrial hearing that violated Napue	Goodrum: Prosecutor lied about Herring’s whereabouts at the hearing, which infected the prosecution’s case	State: Hearing was outside jury presence (jury not selected); any false statements couldn’t have affected the verdict	Court: Not material; no Napue violation from the hearing statements
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing	Goodrum: Hearing needed to develop facts and prove prosecutor knowledge	State: Record refutes materiality; hearing would be futile	Court: No abuse of discretion; hearing would have been futile

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (establishes due-process violation when state knowingly uses false evidence)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (materiality standard: any reasonable likelihood false evidence could affect jury)
Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. en banc) (articulates Napue elements and materiality test)
Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057 (discusses Napue three-factor test)
Dow v. Virga, 729 F.3d 1041 (explains when federal court may review Napue de novo rather than under AEDPA)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (standard for denying evidentiary hearings when record refutes allegations)
Hibbler v. Benedetti, 693 F.3d 1140 (same; petitioner not entitled to hearing if record precludes relief)
Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172 (futility supports denial of evidentiary hearing)
Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (look-through rule for unexplained state-court denials)
Castellanos v. Small, 766 F.3d 1137 (applies look-through to identify last reasoned state decision)
Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768 (no "failure to develop" factual basis where petitioner was denied a state evidentiary hearing)