The Truth Should Set You Free: The Case for Removing State Knowledge Requirements from False Testimony Standards

False testimony claims are an increasinglypopular vehicle in a handful ofstates through which petitioners can challenge unconstitutional criminal convictions. Successful false testimony claims grant petitioners access to remedies guaranteed by the Due Process Clause and overturn offending convictions, giving individuals access to new trials or similar relief But like many post-conviction standards, false testimony is evaluated differently from state to state, producing disparate results. While every state's standard requires that the testimony used at trial be proven both false and material to the petitioner's conviction, states diverge as to whether petitioners must show that a state actor-usually prosecutors or police-knew when introducing that testimony that it was false. Most state courts require such evidence, known as a state knowledge element. But not all states demand proof ofknowledge. Some have removed the knowledge prong from their false testimony standards, recognizing that a knowledge element is superfluous to a determination of whether lies were used to convict and incarcerate a defendant. These states understand due process to be violated when petitioners demonstrate that their convictions were based on material lies, not just when petitioners can find evidence proving police or prosecutors knew about those lies. The result of such divergence is that petitioners in some states receive relieffor claims that are barred in others-including claims in which courts openly acknowledge that false, material testimony was used.