Paul John Denham v. California
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
I.
Whether Paul John Denham's Constitutional right to due process as defined in Napue v.
Illinois (1959) 370 U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct 1173, 3 1. Ed. 2d 1217, was violated when the prosecutor
introduced knowingly false testimony that Detective Bryan McMahon discovered a document in
Petitioner's belongings — four days after the murder, bearing the names and phone numbers of two
commercial airline companies;
II.
Whether the prosecutor violated Petitioner's due process rights as defined in Pyle v. Kansas
317 U.S. 213, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214 (1942).), by failing to correct Detective McMahon's false
testimony, as the state would have been forced to disclose to the jury, after Detective McMahon
testified concerning his discovery of the airline document, the testimony was false; that McMahon
had manufactured the document; and that the state had solicited McMahon's false testimony to the
contrary knowing that he would be providing false evidence. And such a disclosure would have a
devastating effect on the credibility of the entire prosecution's case; and
III.
Whether the Detective McMahon's false testimony was material could have affected the
judgment of the jury within the meaning of United States v. Agurs 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392,
49 L.Ed 2d 342; United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 678, 103 S. Ct. 3375, 87 1. Ed. 2d 481,
where it was established that Petitioner was in San Francisco on the day of a Long Beach murder and
could only have committed the murder by flying into Southern California and his name did not
appear on any flight manifests. Whereas, the false testimony connected Petitioner to two airlines,
i.e., indicating that Petitioner took one flight to commit the murder and another to return to San
Francisco. Furthermore the document was not disclosed nor was information that it was handwritten
by the Detective McMahon. Lastly, the false testimony was the sole testimony that the jurors
requested to be read-back before convicting Petitioner.
Whether Paul John Denham's Constitutional right to due process was violated