Napue v. Illinois
360 U.S. 264 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The knowing use of false testimony by the prosecution, or the failure to correct it when it appears, violates a defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, even when the false testimony pertains only to the credibility of a witness.
Facts:
- In 1938, Henry Napue, George Hamer, and two others attempted to rob a Chicago cocktail lounge.
- During the robbery attempt, an off-duty police officer was fatally wounded, and Hamer was seriously wounded.
- Hamer was apprehended, convicted of murder, and sentenced to 199 years in prison.
- Napue was later apprehended and put on trial for the same murder, with Hamer serving as the principal witness for the State.
- An Assistant State's Attorney promised Hamer that if he testified against Napue, a recommendation for a reduction of his sentence would be made.
- At Napue's trial, Hamer testified in response to a direct question from the prosecutor that no one had promised him anything in return for his testimony.
- The Assistant State's Attorney, who had made the promise, knew Hamer's testimony was false but did nothing to correct the record.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in an Illinois trial court convicted Henry Napue of murder based largely on George Hamer's testimony, and he was sentenced to 199 years.
- The prosecutor who tried the case later filed a petition on Hamer's behalf, revealing he had promised Hamer a sentence reduction for his testimony.
- Napue filed a post-conviction petition in state court, arguing his conviction was obtained using perjured testimony knowingly used by the prosecutor.
- The state trial court denied Napue's petition.
- Napue appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which affirmed the denial. The court found that the prosecutor did knowingly use false testimony but held it was not a constitutional violation because the jury was aware of other reasons to doubt the witness.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's failure to correct a key witness's false testimony that he received no promise of consideration in return for his testimony deny the defendant due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
Yes. The prosecutor's failure to correct the false testimony of a witness which he knew to be false denied the petitioner due process of law. A conviction obtained through the use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment. This principle does not cease to apply merely because the false testimony goes only to the credibility of the witness, as the jury's estimation of a witness's truthfulness is often determinative of guilt or innocence. The fact that the jury was aware of other grounds to question the witness's credibility (that a public defender promised to 'do what he could') does not cure the constitutional defect, as the jury was not aware that the prosecutor himself had promised consideration, which is a more compelling reason for the witness to fabricate testimony.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the prosecutor's duty to ensure a fair trial under the Due Process Clause. It extends the rule from Mooney v. Holohan by clarifying that the prohibition against using perjured testimony applies not only to evidence directly concerning guilt but also to evidence affecting witness credibility. The decision establishes that even when other impeaching evidence is present, the failure to disclose a promise of leniency from the prosecutor is a distinct and material deception that can affect the outcome. This holding places a firm, affirmative duty on prosecutors to correct false testimony, thereby strengthening defendants' rights and promoting the integrity of the trial process.
Unlock the full brief for Napue v. Illinois