Uvukansi v. Texas

Issues: (1) Whether the state courts—by requiring the petitioner, Feanyichi Uvukansi, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the prosecution’s knowing use of and failure to correct false testimony affected the verdict—disregarded the Supreme Court’s precedent requiring that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the false testimony did not affect the verdict; and (2) whether the state courts—by concluding that an eyewitness’s false testimony that he had not been promised consideration was immaterial because impeaching his motive to testify would not impeach his identification of Uvukansi—disregarded the Supreme Court’s precedent holding that impeachment evidence and exculpatory evidence are the same for purposes of a materiality analysis.