False testimony at trial
Woods v. Comerford
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Terone Woods asks the Supreme Court to review the Eleventh Circuit’s denial of appeal permission (a certificate of appealability), arguing it weighed disputed facts and whether alleged errors mattered instead of asking whether reasonable judges could debate his claims.
- Who it affects
- Woods did not get Supreme Court review of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision on appeal permission; the denial did not resolve whether his constitutional claims were valid.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He says the state presented false testimony and his lawyer failed to challenge a witness’s conflicting sworn statements.
Woods said a witness’s trial testimony conflicted with sworn accounts of police interactions that were not recorded. He argued that his lawyer should have used those accounts to challenge the witness and Woods’s post-arrest statement.
The dispute focused on whether the Eleventh Circuit used the right test when it denied Woods permission to appeal, not on a fresh decision about whether his claims were true.
Question presented
1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit violated this Court ’ s precedents in Slack; Miller-El, and Buck by denying a Certificate of Appealability after resolving disputed facts and harmlessness on the merits rather than determining whether reasonable jurist could debate the District Court ’ s resolution of Petitioner ’ s constitutional claims? 2. Whether reasonable jurist could debate Petitioner ’s claims that the State presented false testimony in violation of Giglio v. United States 450 U.S. 150 (1972) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) by failing to impeach the prosecution ’ s key witness with sworn statements contradicting his trial testimony concerning off tape police interactions, relevant to the voluntariness of Petitioner ’s post-arrest statement that the Court ’ s below treated as dispositive?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.