Withheld evidence and false testimony
Clarance Rozell Goode, Jr. v. Oklahoma
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Clarance Goode asks the Supreme Court to review an Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decision rejecting his claims that the state withheld evidence and relied on false testimony.
- What's at stake
- Goode is seeking a new trial or a new death-sentencing hearing, but the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear his request.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He argues the court used the wrong standards and seeks a new trial or a new death-sentencing hearing.
Goode's petition asks whether Oklahoma's post-conviction review court applied the right federal standards to his claims about withheld evidence and false testimony.
Question presented
1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause prohibit a state that opens its collateral review forum to claims under Brady and Napue from refusing to: (i) conduct a cumulative prejudice analysis in assessing the materiality of suppressed evidence; (ii) applying materiality standards that are more demanding than required under Brady and Napue; and (iii) relieving the state of its burden to prove a Napue violation harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the State of Oklahoma’s Brady and Napue violations entitle Mr. Goode to a new trial and/or capital sentencing proceeding.
What happens next
The next step is for the Court to decide whether to hear the petition. No argument or decision timing is set.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
More questions
- What does Goode say Oklahoma got wrong?
- He argues the court should consider the combined effect of allegedly withheld evidence, avoid stricter evidence tests than federal law allows, and require the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that false testimony did not affect the result.
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.