stating that the court need not determine which of two competing standards should apply where the “result reached would be the same” under either
How later courts described this case
- stating that the court need not determine which of two competing standards should apply where the “result reached would be the same” under either
- explaining that the State has an affirmative duty to prevent or correct false testimony
- holding that Bagley “discarded” the Agurs tests and created a single standard
- holding that the district attorney has a duty to correct false testimony
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUMMERS, Judge,
dissenting on Opinion regarding Order denying Petition to rehear.
The State of Tennessee has filed a petition to rehear in this case pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. My two colleagues on this panel have voted to deny the petition to rehear. I respectfully disagree and would grant the petition.
I think the majority opinion in this case went too far in accusing the district attorney general of subordination of false and perjured testimony. The issue of perjured testi *624 mony was not raised below, and the state never really had an opportunity to be heard in this regard. I think we need to re-explore the supposed “deal” made by the state with the witness Apple. Generally, we need to see if our original opinion stated the proper facts as established by the evidence. In sum, I rely upon my remarks in my separate concurring opinion.