context: Contrary to Duenas-Gonzalez's contention, no Brady violation occurred. The government offered neither false evidence nor perjured testimony.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 17 F.3d 1201, 1204
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a new trial was warranted where there is reasonable probability that the false testimony introduced by the government influenced the outcome of the trial
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Endicott, 869 F.2d 452, 455 (9th Cir.1989) (noting that the prosecution’s inadvertent use of perjured testimony can constitute a Brady violation); Cf. United States v. Young, 17 F.3d 1201, 1204 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that a new trial was warranted where there is reasonable probability that the false testimony introduced by the government influenced the outcome of the trial).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 869 F.2d 452, 455
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that the prosecution's inadvertent use of perjured testimony can constitute a Brady violation
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Endicott, 869 F.2d 452, 455 (9th Cir.1989) (noting that the prosecution’s inadvertent use of perjured testimony can constitute a Brady violation); Cf. United States v. Young, 17 F.3d 1201, 1204 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that a new trial was warranted where there is reasonable probability that the false testimony introduced by the government influenced the outcome of the trial).