Sivak v. Hardison

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that there was a Napue violation at the penalty phase because “this is not a case in which the witness at issue had already been exposed to the factfinder as a liar ” (emphasis added)
• concluding that there was a Napue violation at the penalty phase because “this is not a case in which the witness at issue had already been exposed to the factfinder as a liar” (emphasis added)
• concluding that there was a Napue violation at the penalty phase because “this is not a case in which the witness at issue had already been exposed to the factfinder as a liar ” (emphasis added)
• explaining that had a witness’s lies “been exposed,” the jury likely would have rejected the remaining testimony
• explaining that had a witness’s lies “been exposed,” the jury likely would have rejected the remaining testimony
• noting that false testimony could not have changed the jury’s determination because the witness’s testimony was “wholly cumulative to the other evidence” of the defendant’s guilt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).