Due process affords criminal defendants the right to receive evidence possessed by the government that would aid in their defense.  This right was codified in Brady v. Maryland.  Brady’s lesser-known ancestor is Napue v. Illinois, which gave defendants the right to a new trial if the government knowingly offered perjured testimony in their original trial.  The U.S. Supreme Court has held that these rights are critical to support verdicts worthy of confidence necessary to ensure due process.

Unfortunately, defendants victimized by misconduct are often affected by multiple violations of their rights.  Courts have developed ways to examine the prejudicial effect of multiple Brady claims in a single case, but introducing Napue claims with Brady presents an analytical challenge because of the differing standards needed for a new trial under each type of claim.  This Note examines how federal circuits have analyzed mixed-claim cases, where a defendant alleges both Brady and Napue claims.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has analyzed all Napue claims together with Brady claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has analyzed some Brady claims together with Napue claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has analyzed using a combination of the other two tests.  This Note argues that the Ninth Circuit framework is the best of the three at accurately apportioning claims when analyzing mixed-claim cases, but that courts should adopt a modified methodology to more accurately account for the serious harm perjured testimony inflicts on a trial.