Walter Sanders v. James E. Sullivan and Robert Abrams, the Attorney General of the State of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• noting disenchantment with the more liberal Larrison standard and applying it only in cases in which the government deliberately used perjured testimony
• stating, “[t]here is no logical reason to limit a due process violation to state action defined as prosecutorial knowledge of perjured testimony”
• invoking the five-factor concurrent sentence doctrine analysis identified in Vargas in the context of a petition for habeas relief
• discussing cases holding that due process violation requires \a showing of prosecutorial involvement in the perjury\ to constitute the requisite state action necessary to a due process violation
• “Only recantations of material testimony that would most likely affect the verdict rise to the level of a due process violation . . . .”
• when a credible recantation \would most likely change the outcome of the trial\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).