Soto v. Ryan (760 F.3d 947, 2014)

Opinion by Judge TIMLIN; Dissent by Judge SCHROEDER.

OPINION

TIMLIN, District Judge:

Arizona state prisoner Martín Raul Fong Soto (“Petitioner” or “Fong”) appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his jury convictions of murder, robbery and attempt, and aggravated robbery and attempt arising from a triple homicide. A separate jury convicted Petitioner’s codefendants, Christopher McCrimmon (“McCrimmon”) and Andre Minnitt (“Minnitt”), of similar charges in later prosecutions brought by the same prosecutor in Petitioner’s case. However, McCrimmon was acquitted after his second trial and Minnitt’s convictions were vacated after three trials once prosecutorial misconduct during Minnitt’s and McCrimmon’s first two trials was uncovered. Specifically, the prosecutor was found to have knowingly elicited from Detective Joseph Godoy of the Tucson Police Department false testimony about how and when the three defendants became suspects in the case in order to bolster the credibility of the key state witness, Keith Woods, whose testimony tied the defendants to the crime. The prosecutor was later disbarred for his misconduct.

Petitioner raises two certified claims on appeal. First, he contends that the Arizona courts unreasonably rejected his claim that, during his trial, the prosecution also knowingly elicited and used the false testimony of Detective Joseph Godoy regarding when Petitioner became a suspect in this case in order to secure his conviction. Second, he argues that the Arizona courts unreasonably rejected his claim that his counsel was ineffective for calling state informant Keith Woods (“Woods”) as a witness when Woods otherwise would not have testified at Petitioner’s criminal trial.

We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Crimes of Conviction

Petitioner’s convictions arose out of the June 24, 1992 lethal shootings at the El Grande Market in Tucson, Arizona, of Fred Gee (“Gee,” the market manager), Ray Arriola (a market employee), and Ze-wan Huang (Gee’s elderly uncle). State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 186, 928 P.2d 610, 614 (1996). Shortly after the shootings, police found an abandoned car three blocks from the market. Id. The car had been left mid-turn, rather than parked near the curb. Id. at 624-25. The doors were unlocked, the rear windows rolled down, and the hood was warm to the touch. Id. at 625. McCrimmon’s fingerprint was found on the driver’s side window. Id. at 614, 625.

The market was in the process of closing at the time the murders took place. Id. at 615. Gee’s body was found near the open cash register at the liquor counter. The cash register had a sale rung up on it, and nearby on the counter were bags containing a cucumber and three lemons. Id. Petitioner’s fingerprints were found on the bags. Id. Also, on the floor near Gee’s body were two foodstamps not yet stamped with the market’s name. Petitioner’s fingerprint was found on one of the stamps. Id. At least $175.52 was missing from the store. Id.

B. State Informant Keith Woods and Information about a “Chachi”

Shortly after being released from prison in late August 1992, Woods was arrested by Tucson police on a drug charge. Id. In exchange for his release and the dismissal of that charge, which could have subjected Woods to 25 years in prison, Woods agreed to act as a state informant. Id. at 616. On September 8, 1992, the lead homicide detective in the El Grande murder case, Joseph Godoy (“Godoy” or “Detective Godoy”), interviewed Woods because of information Woods represented he had about the triple homicide. Id. at 615. Godoy initially engaged in an un-taped interview with Woods that lasted approximately 80 to 45 minutes, after which police transferred Woods to a “bugged” room in order to tape his statement. State v. Minnitt, 203 Ariz. 431, 55 P.3d 774, 777 (2002).

During the taped portion of the interview, Woods stated that McCrimmon and Minnitt had confessed to him that they had completed the El Grande murders with a third person identified as “Cha-Chi” who used to work at the market. Woods stated that Chachi “masked down or whatever” during the shooting. Woods also repre-. sented that he had never seen or met Chachi before and could not describe what Chachi looked like. Woods relayed that McCrimmon and Minnitt confessed to him on the first day that Woods was released from prison in late August 1992.

Woods’ September 8, 1992 statement was not the first date on which Detective Godoy learned of a Chachi being a possible suspect in the El Grande murders. In an investigative report dated September 9, 1992, Godoy stated that on August 31, 1992, he received a call from an unknown male who stated that “Martin Soto and a black guy named McKinney” committed the shootings. According to the September 9, 1992 report, later that same day, a Detective Zimmerling (“Zimmerling”) advised Godoy that a female confidential informant represented that “a Hispanic male named Chachi and a black male named Christopher McCrimmon” were involved in the triple homicide. Godoy went on to relate in his report that on September 1, 1992, he obtained information from the Tucson Police Department’s Gang Unit that Petitioner Fong was an associate of McCrimmon’s, that his AKA was Martin Soto, and that he also went by the name Chachi.

In another investigative report dated September 15, 1992, Godoy related slightly different facts about when and from whom he learned about a Chachi. For example, in this subsequently dated report, Godoy related that on August 31, 1992, the unknown male caller identified McKinney and a Chachi (not a Martin Soto) as involved in the El Grande murders. Godoy also related that on that same day, Zim-merling called to state that a confidential informant had identified as suspects a black male known as Christopher McCrim-mon and a Mexican male known as Martin Soto or Chachi. In the report, Godoy represented that he then completed a records check on Christopher McCrimmon and Martin Soto, but that no information came back on a Martin Soto.

As a result, Godoy went to the El Grande Market to see if Tommy Gee, a relative of the deceased market manager, recognized either name. Tommy Gee said that he did not but that an individual named Martin Fong, ie., Petitioner, used to work at the market. Godoy stated in his report that he then completed a records check on Martin Fong which was successful and revealed that Martin Fong used the name Martin Soto. Godoy also related that the next day, on September 1, 1992, Detective Fuller with the Tucson Police Department told him that McCrim-mon was best friends with an individual named Martin Fong or Martin Soto.

As reflected in the September 15, 1992 report, on September 2, 1992, Detective Godoy helped Detective Fuller arrest Min-nitt and McCrimmon for a robbery committed in Tucson at Mariano’s Pizzeria on August 26, 1992. Detective Godoy questioned each of them about their involvement in the El Grande murders, and both denied any involvement in those murders or in the Mariano’s Pizzeria robbery. McCrimmon also denied having seen Fong recently, and Minnitt claimed not to know Fong at all. Nonetheless, after a forensic identification technician concluded on September 10, 1992, that Fong’s fingerprints matched those found on certain items at the El Grande Market crime scene, Petitioner was arrested on September 11, 1992.

Detective Godoy completed a second interview with Woods on November 20,1992. On that date, the police apprehended Woods after he had gone into hiding for a few weeks in an attempt to renege on his deal to aid law enforcement in the prosecution of the El Grande homicides. This interview also began with an untaped portion. In the taped portion of the interview, Woods began by continuing to represent that when Minnitt and McCrimmon confessed to him, they only referred to the third individual as “Chachi.” Woods also related that McCrimmon and Minnitt told Woods that Chachi made the plans to commit the robbery at the market because he used to work there, and he could get them inside because the market employees would recognize him.

Woods went on to tell Godoy that he had met Chachi at the house of McCrimmon’s girlfriend, Bridget Lucero, on a date after McCrimmon and Minnitt had been arrested in early September 1992 in connection with the Mariano’s Pizzeria case. As a result, Woods said that he could now identify Chachi as Petitioner because Woods had also seen Petitioner on television after Petitioner was arrested for the El Grande murders on September 11,1992 (though on September 8, 1992, Woods claimed to have never met Chachi).

Later in the interview, when Godoy again referred to Woods meeting Chachi, Woods stated that “they” were actually calling him Martin, not Chachi, and that Woods was not sure if Martin and Chachi were two different people. Then, for the first time, Woods specifically related that, during McCrimmon and Minnitt’s joint confession to him on the day that he was released from prison, McCrimmon had talked about committing the homicides with a guy named “Martin” and “Chachi.” Woods again repeated that he was not sure if Martin and Chaehi were the same person. At that point in the interview, Godoy then identified “Martin’s” girlfriend as Betty Christopher (Petitioner’s girlfriend) and asked Woods if he knew Betty Christopher; Woods answered in the affirmative.

Petitioner’s attorney, James Stuehringer (“Stuehringer”), conducted a March 4, 1993 pretrial interview of Woods. During that interview, Woods expressly stated that MeCrimmon and Minnitt had told him during their joint confession to the El Grande murders that “Martin” and “Cha-chi” had committed the crime with them, and that both names referred to a single person, Betty Christopher’s boyfriend. During this interview, Woods also receded from his September 8,1992 statement that Chaehi wore a mask during the commission of the murders. That is, he indicated that he only assumed Chaehi wore a mask but had not explicitly been told that by MeCrimmon or Minnitt. Woods also told Stuehringer that MeCrimmon had told him that Chaehi lived behind a Circle K off of a street called Prince.

C. Petitioner’s State Court Trial

The prosecution’s theory of the case was that, as an undisputed former El Grande Market employee, Fong exploited the store employees’ recognition of him to gain access to the store while it was in the process of closing, enabling him, Minnitt and MeCrimmon to commit the charged crimes. See, e.g., Soto-Fong, 928 P.2d at 620. However, the state did not plan to call Woods as a witness in Petitioner’s case because Fong was not present when MeCrimmon and Minnitt allegedly confessed to Woods, raising Sixth Amendment confrontation clause issues under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).

Petitioner’s attorney nonetheless listed Woods as a defense witness in order to support a primary defense theory of mistaken identity: that Chaehi was not Petitioner but Martin Garza, a close friend of McCrimmon’s with the nickname “Chaehi.” Soto-Fong, 928 P.2d at 615. Stuehringer likewise filed a motion in limine asking the trial court to limit the scope of Woods’ testimony to his September 8, 1992 statement wherein he implicated a former El Grande employee named Chaehi but failed explicitly to identify Chaehi as Petitioner.

The judge denied Stuehringer’s motion in limine and ruled that, if Woods testified, all of his statements to law enforcement about McCrimmon’s and Minnitt’s joint confession to him, including Woods’ November 20, 1992 statement, would be admissible at trial. Soto-Fong, 928 P.2d at 616-17. Stuehringer still decided to call Woods as a witness, who went on to testify, inter alia, to the contents of his September 8 and November 20, 1992 statements. Soto-Fong, 928 P.2d at 620 (noting that Woods testified that “the third murderer was ‘Martin,’ ‘the Mexican dude,’ who ‘used to work there[.]’”); see also id. at 624. During trial, Woods also expressly stated that MeCrimmon and Minnitt told him when they confessed to the crimes that Martin was Betty Christopher’s boyfriend, consistent with his statement to Stuehringer during the March 4, 1993 pretrial interview. Id. at 624. And Woods related that he understood Chaehi to be Petitioner after meeting him at Bridget Lucero’s house.

As part of the mistaken identity defense, Stuehringer also introduced evidence that Petitioner had never been known as “Cha-Chi.” Id. at 616 n. 2. Stuehringer likewise called Martin Garza as a witness and elicited from him that his nickname was Chaehi, that he and MeCrimmon were friends who lived around the corner from one another, that MeCrimmon called him Chaehi, and that he lived near the Circle K off of a street called Prince. Moreover, Stueh-ringer elicited from Detective Godoy that, after his September 8, 1992 meeting with Woods but before November 20, 1992, Go-doy misstated in a telephonic search warrant affidavit and under oath during a juvenile court transfer hearing that Woods had identified Petitioner as Chachi, that Petitioner confessed to the crimes, and that Petitioner had the murder weapon. As a result, Stuehringer argued to the jury that Godoy had an incentive to feed Woods additional incriminating information connecting Chachi to Petitioner when Godoy and Woods met for the second time on November 20, 1992, after Woods had gone into hiding. As another part of the defense strategy, Stuehringer presented evidence and argument that the detectives, including Detective Godoy, misrepresented and mishandled the fingerprint evidence implicating Petitioner, making that evidence unreliable. Soto-Fong, 928 P.2d at 615, 621.

In addition to the testimony from defense witness Woods and the state’s presentation of the fingerprint evidence linking Petitioner to the crime scene, the jury also heard from a primary state witness named Queen E. Ray (“Ray”). Ray testified that she loaned the abandoned car found near the El Grande shootings with McCrim-mon’s fingerprint on it to McCrimmon in return for money on the evening of the El Grande shootings. Id. at 614. She farther testified that McCrimmon, Minnitt, and a third person, whom she knew as “Martinez,” left McCrimmon’s apartment with the car around 10:00 p.m. Id. She identified Petitioner as Martinez during trial. Id. at 614-15. She went on to testify that McCrimmon, Minnitt, and Petitioner returned to McCrimmon’s apartment about an hour after she loaned them the car, without the car, and that McCrimmon gave her $30 and the car keys. Id. at 615.

Petitioner, seventeen at the time the crimes were committed, was convicted on all counts except a burglary count and ultimately sentenced to death. Soto-Fong, 928 P.2d at 615.

D. State Misconduct and the Trials of Petitioner’s Co-Defendants

Petitioner’s co-defendants, McCrimmon and Minnitt, were tried three weeks later. During that joint trial, the prosecutor in the El Grande murder cases, Kenneth Peasley (“Peasley”), represented during his opening and closing statements that Godoy did not have the names of Petitioner, McCrimmon, or Minnitt until he met with Woods on September 8, 1992, and also stated that Godoy did not suspect a former market employee or know that Petitioner worked at the El Grande Market until he interviewed Woods; Godoy gave testimony consistent with Peasle/s representations. Minnitt, 55 P.3d at 778. Both Minnitt and McCrimmon were convicted and sentenced to death. However, McCrimmon’s and Minnitt’s initial convictions were overturned on appeal because of jury coercion, while Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on direct review. State v. McCrimmon, 187 Ariz. 169, 927 P.2d 1298, 1303 (1996); Soto-Fong, 928 P.2d at 635.

Meanwhile, the state retried Minnitt and McCrimmon in separate trials. Minnitt’s 1997 initial retrial resulted in a hung jury. Minnitt, 55 P.3d at 777. During that trial and in line with questions asked during the 1993 joint trial, Peasley repeatedly elicited testimony from Godoy that Godoy did not suspect McCrimmon, Minnitt, Fong or a “Cha-chi” of committing the El Grande murders until Godoy spoke with Woods on September 8, 1992. Id. at 779. At McCrimmon’s 1997 retrial, his defense counsel confronted Godoy about this testimony, and Godoy admitted that it was false but that he feared causing a mistrial by improperly revealing information obtained from confidential informants. Id. McCrimmon was acquitted.

Minnitt was then tried for the third time by a different prosecutor and was convicted again in 1999. Id. at 776, 780. But, on October 11, 2002, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated his conviction and held that his latest retrial should have been barred under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment because of Peasley’s repeated and knowing use of false testimony during Minnitt’s prior two trials. Id. at 783.

In summarizing the context of the prose-cutorial misconduct, the Arizona Supreme Court recounted the following:

Before discussing the actual misconduct in this case, we recount the context in which it occurred. Deputy County Attorney Kenneth Peasley conducted the 1993 Soto-Fong trial and the 1993 and 1997 trials of Minnitt and McCrim-mon. He did not participate in Minnitt’s 1999 trial. In all three Minnitt trials and in both McCrimmon trials, the state’s case depended heavily on Keith Woods’ credibility. Importantly, as of September 2, the police had identified Soto-Fong, McCrimmon, and Minnitt as suspects in the El Grande crimes and had interviewed them. But according to Godoy, police had yet to interview anyone who could provide direct evidence linking any of the three to the crimes. Woods was not interviewed until September 8, six days after the McCrimmon and Minnitt interviews. Godoy claimed to have received his first knowledge of any involvement by McCrimmon and Minnitt from his interview with Woods. This was the information the police were seeking-that McCrimmon and Minnitt had implicated themselves in the murders and that a witness would so testify.

Woods’ credibility was tenuous. He was a convicted felon and drug addict who entered into an agreement with the state to provide testimony to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. The state had no plausible explanation why Godoy conducted the untaped [portion of the September 8] interview with Woods. The defense strategy in the Minnitt and McCrimmon trials was to show that Go-doy was the source of Woods’ information about Minnitt’s and McCrimmon’s involvement in the case, and that during the untaped interview, he fed that information to Woods. If Godoy was indeed the source, Woods’ testimony would not have helped the state.

Similarly, without Woods, the state’s case would be significantly weakened because no direct or physical evidence connected Minnitt to the crime, and the credibility of the remaining witnesses was questionable.

Id. at 777-78.

In summarizing the extent of the misconduct, the Arizona Supreme Court further concluded:

Peasley’s misdeeds were not isolated events but became a consistent pattern of prosecutorial misconduct that began in 1993 and continued through retrial in 1997. The prosecutor knowingly and repeatedly misled the jury as to how, when, and from whom Godoy first learned the names of the three defendants. By allowing the jury to believe that Woods was the initial source, the state avoided the credibility obstacle that would have been apparent had Go-doy himself been the source. It is clear that Godoy testified falsely and that his testimony was used to bolster the credibility of the state’s key witness. Moreover, the record establishes that Peasley knew the testimony was false and not only failed to clarify the mistake but argued the evidentiary point to the jury. Peasley’s calculated deception reveals the actual weakness of the state’s case.

Id. at 782.

Because of his misconduct in the McCrimmon and Minnitt trials, Peasley was disbarred. In re Peasley, 208 Ariz. 27, 90 P.3d 764, 781 (2004).

E. Petitioner’s Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings in State and Federal Court

Fong filed his first state postconviction relief (“PCR”) petition in Arizona Superior Court on August 20, 1999. That petition included, inter alia, a claim alleging prose-cutorial misconduct based on perjury by Detective Godoy akin to that ultimately found to have occurred in Minnitt’s and McCrimmon’s trials. It also included a claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because of Stuehringer’s decision to call Keith Woods as a defense witness.

During evidentiary hearings occurring in January and August 2001, Stuehringer testified about his defense strategy, and Peas-ley testified about the prosecutorial misconduct and certain Brady v. Marlyand allegations. Because Godoy was under indictment for perjury stemming from McCrimmon’s and Minnitt’s trials at that time, he invoked his rights under the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify at the evidentiary hearings.

Prior to issuing a ruling on the petition, Fong’s assigned state court judge died, and when a new judge was assigned to the matter, the parties agreed that a number of issues raised by Fong could be decided without further evidentiary development. After those claims were resolved and denied in a June 27, 2002 order, the superior court then held another evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s remaining claims in August 2002. Godoy again did not appear as a witness due to his intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment if so called, even though he no longer was under indictment for his conduct in McCrimmon’s and Minnitt’s prosecutions. In an October 7, 2002 ruling, the Arizona Superior Court denied Petitioner’s remaining claims, including his prosecutorial misconduct claim based on Godoy’s alleged perjury and his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on Stuehringer’s decision to call Woods as a defense witness.

Fong filed two more PCR petitions in state superior court and engaged in a number of related state appellate proceedings in a continued effort to challenge his conviction and sentence. While he successfully had his death sentence vacated as a result of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), he obtained no other relief in state court, and the October 7, 2002 Arizona Superior Court ruling remains the last reasoned state court decision on the two certified issues addressed herein.

Fong’s federal habeas petition asserted 24 claims for relief. On August 5, 2011, the district court found that Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief on any of his claims. However, it issued a certificate of appealability on the two issues addressed in the instant opinion after finding that Petitioner had not met the requirements for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) for claims adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because Fong filed his federal ha-beas petition after April 1, 1996, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) applies to his claims. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Under the AEDPA, a federal court can grant relief only if the state court’s adjudication of a petitioner’s claim on the merits was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or if the state proceeding “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The AEDPA sets forth a “highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,” Lindh, 521 U.S. at 333 n. 7, 117 S.Ct. 2059, and “demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt,” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002).

On federal habeas review, the court “look[s] through unexplained state court decisions leaving, in effect, the denial of post-conviction relief to the last reasoned state court decision to address the claim at issue.” Medley v. Runnels, 506 F.3d 857, 862 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). A state court renders a decision “contrary to” federal law if it reaches “a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if [it] decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

A state court unreasonably applies federal law if it “identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court’s] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. Under the “unreasonable application” inquiry, “the state court decision [must] be more than incorrect or erroneous.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Instead, the decision must be “objectively unreasonable.” Id.; see also Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (“As a condition for obtaining habe-as corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” (emphasis added)). This same standard of unreasonableness applies to state court factual determinations under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103, 1107-08 (9th Cir.2000)); see also Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir.2014) (“[W]e may only hold that a state court’s decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts if ‘we [are] convinced that an appellate panel, applying the normal standards of appellate review, could not reasonably conclude that the finding is supported by the record.’ ” (alternation in original) (quoting Taylor, 366 F.3d at 1000)).

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. Tanner v. McDaniel, 493 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir.2007). The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Allen v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 979, 992 (9th Cir.2005).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Alleged Napue Violation

In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), the Supreme Court held “that a conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Under this clearly established Supreme Court precedent, the petitioner must show that (1) the testimony (or evidence) was actually false, (2) the prosecution knew or should have known that the testimony was actually false, and (3) that the false testimony was material. United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir.2003); see also Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28, 31, 78 S.Ct. 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 9 (1957) (the state cannot allow a witness to give a material false impression of the evidence). “In addition, the state violates a criminal defendant’s right to due process of law when, although not soliciting false evidence, it allows false evidence to go uncorrected when it appears.” Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir.2005) (citing Alcorta and Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214 (1942)).

False testimony is material if there is “any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). “Under this materiality standard, [t]he question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.” Id. (alteration in the original) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Dow v. Virga, 729 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir.2013) (“Napue requires us to determine only whether the error could have affected the judgment of the jury, whereas ordinary harmless error review requires us to determine whether the error would have done so.” (emphasis in original)).

On appeal, Petitioner asserts that the prosecution built its case on false testimony by Detective Godoy implying that he did not suspect Petitioner, Minnitt, or McCrimmon of committing the El Grande homicides until he first spoke with Woods on September 8, 1992. Petitioner contends that because this testimony left the jury with the false impression that Woods was the original source of Godoy’s suspicion of Fong, it bolstered the credibility of Godoy and Woods and discredited the defense argument that Godoy told Woods what to say.

As framed before the state courts, Petitioner’s claim focuses on a single question Peasley asked Godoy during direct examination, as well as a series of questions Stuehringer proceeded to ask Godoy on cross-examination. Godoy testified after Stuehringer had already called Woods as a defense witness, wherein Woods had testified that, on September 8, 1992, he had told Godoy that McCrimmon, Minnitt, and an individual called “Chachi” were responsible for the El Grande murders. The next day, during Godoy’s direct examination, Peasley asked the following question:

Peasley: What I’m going to do is this: Ask you to focus on the time period of June 24th until the end of August of 1992. During that time period, had you developed any information up to the end of August, had you developed any information that would lead you to believe that either Christopher McCrimmon, Andre Minnitt, or Martin Fong were suspects in the killings of these three men at the El Grande Market?

Godoy: No, sir.

This question was not directly followed by questions about Godoy’s September 8,1992 contact with Woods.

However, the next day, on cross-examination, Stuehringer asked Godoy about Keith Woods’ September 8, 1992 statement:

Stuehringer: So what you were saying to Mr. Woods and what Mr. Woods was saying to you was committed to a tape [on September 8,1992]?

Godoy: That’s correct.

Stuehringer: In the course of that statement is when you learn about Mr. McCrimmon and Mr. Minnitt?

Godoy: Yes.

Stuehringer: And this third person named Cha-Chi?

Godoy: That’s correct.

Stuehringer: I think you testified earlier this afternoon that after September 8th, your next contact with Mr. Woods wasn’t until November 20th?

Godoy: That’s correct.

Stuehringer: So whatever information you had that you testified to between September 8th and November 20th came from that September 8th session?

Godoy: Yes.

Petitioner argued before the state courts (as he argues here) that Godoy’s testimony in response to the above questions constituted perjury and left the jury with the false impression that Woods was the original source of Godoy’s suspicion of Fong.

As to the direct examination question by Peasley, the state PCR court ruled that Godoy’s response did not meet the definition of perjury under Arizona law because of Fong’s own representation in his petition that Godoy’s answer was “technically [ ] true (although misleading),” considering Godoy stated in his September 9 and 15, 1992 investigative reports that he had obtained information by August 31, 1992— ie., the end of August — implicating McCrimmon and Petitioner in the crimes. In other words, the state court ruled that a technically true statement, by definition, could not constitute perjury under Arizona law.

As to the alleged perjury committed by Godoy during Stuehringer’s cross-examination of him, the state PCR court reasoned that Stuehringer’s questions and Go-doy’s answers had to be considered in the entire context of Godoy’s testimony. In particular, the state court found that when Godoy answered the above questions by Stuehringer, Godoy did not actually state that he had never heard of the three defendants’ names before meeting with Woods. Specifically regarding Fong, the state PCR court pointed out that earlier in Stuehringer’s cross-examination of Godoy, Stuehringer had elicited testimony from Godoy that sometime in late June to late August, Godoy got in touch with members of the Gee family to obtain a list of current and former El Grande market employees and that Godoy found out from them that Petitioner was a former employee.

Most significant for the state court, on Peasley’s redirect of Godoy, Peasley attempted to explore further the circumstances under which Godoy first spoke with the Gee family and how and from whom he first learned Petitioner was a possible suspect. Those questions began as follows:

Peasley: When did that conversation with the Gee family actually take place?

Godoy: I had spoken to them a couple of times throughout the summer about who worked there and specifically asked him right when Mr. Fong became a focus of this case — and the first week was September — about who actually worked there.

Peasley: So when you talked to Mr. Gee and you asked him about his employment records, did you refer by name to the individual you were concerned about whether or not he had worked there?

Godoy: Yes, I believe I at that time asked for Mr. Martin Soto.

Peasley: And had you gotten information, sir, before that conversation with Mr. Gee that provided you with the name, Martin Soto, so you would have a name to ask Mr. Gee about in the first place?

Godoy: Yes.

Peasley: And from how many different sources had you gotten the name, Martin or Martin Soto, prior to your conversation with Mr. Gee where you asked him about whether or not Martin Soto had ever worked there?

Stuehringer: Judge, objection, hearsay, foundation.

Peasley: The door was opened on that one, Judge. And, again, if I need to be heard, but Mr. Stuehringer made inquiry about that conversation.

Court: Sustained.

Peasley: Did you speak with Sergeant Zimmerling before your conversation with Mr. Gee where you asked about employment records? Did you speak with Sergeant Zimmerling of the Tucson Police Department?

Godoy: Yes, I did.

Peasley: Without going into the nature of the conversation that you had with Sergeant Zimmerling—

Stuehringer: Judge, could I approach the bench and be heard?

Stuehringer and Peasley then engaged in a sidebar with the trial court judge in which Stuehringer asked that Peasley be precluded from exploring with Godoy in any fashion any anonymous sources of information possibly connecting Petitioner or a “Martin Soto” to the crime because such testimony lacked foundation and was prejudicial hearsay. The court, this time, overruled Stuehringer’s objection, and Peasley proceeded as follows:

Peasley: Sir, I was asking you about your conversation with Sergeant Zim-merling of the Tucson Police Department. When was it that you actually spoke with Sergeant Zimmerling?

Godoy: The exact date I believe was August 31st.

Peasley: Without going into the nature of the information, did Sergeant Zim-merling give you information that you thought was pertinent to this particular case?

Stuehringer: Judge, may I just have a continuing objection?

Court: Yes, you may.

Godoy: Yes.

Peasley: Was it after your conversation with Sergeant Zimmerling that you contacted the Gees and made inquiry about employment records?

Godoy: Yes.

Peasley: And was it after that conversation, sir, that you specifically asked about Martin Soto?

Godoy: Yes, sir.

Peasley: Were you at some point, then, after that inquiry provided with records concerning Martin Fong who you later came to know as Martin Soto?

Godoy: Yes.

Based on the above testimony, the state court concluded that the jury actually was informed that Godoy suspected Petitioner’s involvement in the El Grande murders prior to Godoy’s September 8, 1992 meeting with Woods and at least as early as August 31, 1992, and that any limitations on the extent of the information presented to the jury about what Godoy knew prior to talking to Woods was caused, in part, by Petitioner’s own counsel who kept objecting to Godoy testifying about information contained in his September 9 and 15, 1992 investigative reports.

The state PCR court likewise concluded that Godoy’s quoted testimony on direct and cross-examination, in addition to not being perjurious, also did not give a material false impression to the jury that Godoy did not suspect Petitioner’s involvement in the homicides until Godoy met with Woods. Stuehringer’s admitted trial strategy was of particular import to the state PCR court in evaluating Petitioner’s false impression argument.

Specifically, the state PCR court noted that Stuehringer’s defense strategy in calling Woods as a defense witness was to try and connect the Chachi that Woods had referred to on September 8, 1992, to Martin Garza and to suggest that when Woods later stated to Detective Godoy on November 20, 1992, that, inter alia, Chachi was also referred to as “Martin” and was “Betty Christopher’s boyfriend,” those additional details connecting Chachi to Petitioner had been fed to Woods by Godoy. In other words, Petitioner’s mistaken identity defense aimed to keep from the jury any inculpatory information — such as information in Godoy’s September 9 and 15, 1992 investigative reports — identifying Petitioner as Chachi or a murder suspect prior to September 8, 1992, the date on which Woods first implicated a Chachi who seemingly could be connected to Martin Garza.

As a result, the state PCR court found that the prosecution could not be faulted for failing to elicit fully the very information that Petitioner affirmatively sought to keep out at trial. Moreover, the state PCR court noted that Fong, in apparent contradiction of his own argument, even acknowledged in his petition that Peasley attempted to elicit from Godoy at trial that Godoy had information implicating Fong in the crimes prior to September 8,1992, and cited to Peasley’s redirect of Godoy on October 20, 1993, quoted above, in which Peasley asked Godoy about information obtained from Sergeant Zimmerling and the Gee family. And the state PCR court again emphasized that the prosecution was nonetheless able to present the jury with some evidence, over defense counsel’s repeated objections, that Petitioner became a suspect in the case on or about August 31, 1992, before Godoy spoke with Woods. Therefore, the state PCR court also rejected Petitioner’s false impression argument.

Based on the above state PCR court reasoning and trial testimony at issue, Petitioner fails to show that the state PCR court’s decision denying him relief on his Napue claim was unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1) or (d)(2).

Petitioner first argues that Godoy’s testimony on direct examination — that he developed no information suggesting that McCrimmon, Minnitt, and Petitioner were suspects in the El Grande murders during the time period from June 24 until the end of August 1992 — was in fact false because evidence shows that: 1) Godoy had suspected Petitioner and had been pursuing him all summer, and 2) Godoy had allegedly received certain information from Sergeant Zimmerling and an anonymous caller possibly implicating Petitioner and McCrimmon in the triple homicide as of August 31,1992.

But neither of Petitioner’s two factual allegations renders the state court’s decision denying his Napue claim unreasonable because the evidence Petitioner claims reveals the deception in Godoy’s direct examination testimony was in fact disclosed to the jury during trial, as acknowledged by the state PCR court. For example, Petitioner supports his first factual allegation — that Godoy had suspected Fong all summer — by citing to an August 27, 1992 investigative report authored by Godoy in which Godoy stated that he contacted the El Grande Market on June 30, 1992, to receive a list of former and current employees.

However, as the state PCR court noted, Godoy testified to substantially similar facts during Stuehringer’s crossexamination of him wherein Godoy stated that he had contacted the Gees about obtaining a list of current and former employees somewhere in the time frame of late June to late August and thereafter learned that Petitioner was a former employee. Moreover, during Stuehringer’s recross of Go-doy, Stuehringer expressly asked Godoy about the August 27, 1992 investigative report and Godoy’s representation therein that he asked the Gees for an employee list on June 30, 1992. Considering such evidence was disclosed to the jury, Petitioner does not explain how these facts would otherwise render Godoy’s direct-examination testimony false or misleading.

Petitioner’s second factual allegation— that Godoy’s direct testimony was false because undisclosed evidence shows that he actually obtained information implicating Fong from Sergeant Zimmerling and an anonymous caller by August 31, 1992— is belied by the state court trial testimony quoted above. Here, again, the jury was presented with the evidence that Petitioner urges on appeal was not presented to the jury and rendered Godoy’s testimony misleading. Indeed, as the state PCR court found, on redirect, the prosecution did in fact elicit that Godoy had learned via conversations with Zimmerling information implicating Petitioner in the case — the suspect name “Martin Soto” — by at least August 31, 1992, approximately one week before Godoy spoke with Woods. Moreover, the prosecution asked Godoy from what other sources he had obtained incriminating information about a “Martin” or “Martin Soto” at that time, but Petitioner’s counsel made an objection to the admission of such testimony into evidence, which the court sustained. As a result, the prosecution was hampered in its ability to flesh out all information Godoy had that potentially implicated Petitioner prior to his meeting with Woods.

Petitioner nonetheless attempts to get around the fact that Godoy testified to obtaining certain incriminating facts from Zimmerling as of August 31, 1992, by contending that Godoy’s testimony that he received the name “Martin Soto” from Zimmerling as of August 31, 1992, was also false. In support of this allegation, Petitioner notes that Godoy’s September 9 and 15, 1992 investigative reports contain varied details about whether Zimmerling identified a “Chaehi” as a possible suspect or a “Martin Soto” as a suspect. Petitioner also notes that during pretrial interviews, both Zimmerling and Godoy stated that Zimmerling had identified as a possible suspect an individual named “Chaehi” or “Martin” but had never used the last name “Soto.”

But Petitioner’s references to what very well may be inconsistencies between Go-doy’s trial testimony and other evidence detailing what Zimmerling told Godoy about possible suspect names on August 31, 1992, obfuscate the issue on appeal. Petitioner’s Napue claim in state and federal court has always centered on whether Godoy’s direct examination testimony was false and misleading because it allowed the jury to infer that Woods was the source of Godoy’s suspicion of Fong. Even if Godoy’s testimony about what information Zim-merling gave him was not fully accurate, Petitioner does not cogently dispute that Godoy’s testimony on redirect at least communicated to the jury that Godoy’s suspicion of Petitioner preceded his September 8, 1992 interview with Woods and instead arose from his prior contacts with Sergeant Zimmerling and the Gee family, thereby correcting any impression that Woods was the initial source of information linking Petitioner to the crime. In other words, Petitioner fails to develop the significance of possible inconsistencies concerning Godoy’s trial testimony and statements about information received from Zimmerling for purposes of his Napue claim.

Petitioner also argues on appeal that the state court was unreasonable in concluding that Godoy’s cross-examination testimony in which he testified that he “learned about” McCrimmon, Minnitt, and a “Cha-chi” from Woods during their September 8, 1992 conversation was not perjurious. However, as the state PCR court noted, when Godoy testified “yes” in response to a question phrased by defense counsel asking if Godoy learned about Minnitt, McCrimmon, and a Chaehi on that date, Godoy did not affirmatively state that he learned the names of those three individuals for the first time during that conversation.

Moreover, as the state argues on appeal, it is reasonable to construe the phrase “learn about” in the context of the question posed by defense counsel to refer to the role played by a Chaehi in the murders, rather than simply the name Chaehi. Petitioner does not dispute that Godoy first learned about the details of a Chachi’s alleged role in the El Grande murders from his conversation with Woods on September 8, 1992, though Godoy had otherwise obtained the name “Chaehi” as a possible suspect by at least August 31, 1992, as reflected in his September 9 and 15, 1992 investigative reports.

Godoy’s affirmative one-word answer to a question phrased by defense counsel in this case also directly contrasts with Go-doy’s testimony in the trials of Petitioner’s co-defendants, where Woods was the key state witness and the prosecution expressly asserted in its opening statement that Godoy did not have the names of McCrim-mon, Minnitt, or Petitioner until after he met with Woods on September 8, 1992. Minnitt, 55 P.3d at 778-79. Here, because Woods was a defense witness, the prosecution did not even mention Woods in its opening statement. Moreover, in those later trials, Peasley asked Godoy when McCrimmon, Minnitt, and Fong became suspects and Godoy expressly responded that he did not suspect any of the named defendants until he met with Woods on September 8, 1992, and that he did not suspect a former employee in the El Grande homicides and did not get in contact with the Gee family about a former employee until after he spoke with Woods on that date. Id.; see also In re Beasley, 90 P.3d at 767-68. Godoy’s isolated “learn about” answer in the context of Petitioner’s trial does not approach this same level of affirmative misrepresentation.

Even if Godoy’s direct and cross-examination testimony was not outright perju-rious, Petitioner nonetheless urges that Godoy’s quoted testimony still created a material false impression that Woods was the source of the name Chachi — if not the source of Godoy’s general suspicion of Fong — because the prosecution’s redirect examination of Godoy only focused on whether Godoy had suspected a former market employee, a “Martin,” or a “Martin Soto” on or about August 31, 1992. In other words, Petitioner argues that the state PCR court’s reliance on Peas-ley’s redirect of Godoy as mitigating any misunderstanding about when Petitioner generally became a suspect in the case was unreasonable because the state court failed to acknowledge the more nuanced point that the jury remained uninformed that Godoy already suspected a Chachi of the crime and had information linking Petitioner to the name “Chachi” prior to his September 8, 1992 contact with Woods.

However, this distinction between a general suspicion of Petitioner and suspicion of a Chachi was not lost on the state PCR court. Instead, as the state PCR court repeatedly emphasized in its decision denying Petitioner relief, Petitioner’s counsel consistently objected when Peasley began asking Godoy about the contents of his September 9 and 15, 1992 investigative reports. While it remains unclear if the prosecutor meant to at some point ask Godoy about a Chachi as referred to in those reports, the state PCR court’s focus on such defense objections at least acknowledges that the prosecutor was hampered in his ability to reveal fully to the jury the contents of the September 9 and 15, 1992 investigative reports, which contained information linking Petitioner to the name Chachi.

But, more significantly, the state PCR court’s focus on Petitioner’s defense theory in rejecting his false impression claim demonstrates that it reasonably concluded that the original source of the name Cha-chi was not material to Petitioner’s defense. In other words, Petitioner’s defense theory did not aim to prove that Godoy fed the name Chachi to Woods during their September 8, 1992 meeting, in comparison to the defense theories of Petitioner’s codefendants who were' explicitly named by Woods in his September 8, 1992 statement and wanted to prove that Godoy fed their names to Woods on that date. Minnitt, 55 P.3d at 778.

While Stuehringer no doubt at times pointed out that it was suspect for Godoy to engage in untaped communications with Woods on September 8, 1992, Stuehringer actually wanted the jury to believe Woods’ September 8, 1992 representation that a Chachi — Martin Garza — had committed the El Grande murders with McCrimmon and Minnitt as part of Petitioner’s mistaken identity defense. As a result, Stueh-ringer purposefully did not present the jury with any argument that Godoy was motivated to feed the name “Chachi” to Woods on that date. Indeed, when testifying about his defense strategy during two different state PCR court evidentiary hearings, Stuehringer expressly stated that he aimed to have the jury believe Woods’ September 8, 1992 representation that a Chachi committed the crimes.

Stuehringer’s opening statement comports with his articulation of the defense strategy made during the state PCR court evidentiary hearings. As reflected in that opening statement, Petitioner’s mistaken identity defense focused on Godoy feeding Woods additional information connecting Chachi to Petitioner after Godoy met with Woods on September 8, 1992, information — that McCrimmon and Minnitt referred to Chachi as “Martin” and “Betty Christopher’s boyfriend” and that Woods could now identify Petitioner as Chachi— which Woods only included in his later November 20, 1992 statement. For example, during opening statement, Stuehringer began by presenting to the jury as worthy of belief Woods’ initial September 8, 1992 statement to Godoy. In particular, he highlighted that on that date Woods told Godoy that he had never met Chachi, did not know who he was, and understood Chachi to have been masked during the triple homicide. Stuehringer also omitted that Woods referred to Chachi as a market employee on that date, the primary fact in Woods’ September 8, 1992 statement undermining Petitioner’s mistaken identity defense. Stuehringer went on to tell the jury that after September 8, 1992, Detective Godoy affirmatively misrepresented under oath during a juvenile court transfer hearing that Woods told him that: Petitioner had also confessed to the crime; Petitioner was in possession of the murder weapon; and Chachi was Petitioner.

Because Godoy had gone “out on a limb” when testifying in juvenile court, Stueh-ringer told the jury that Godoy had a clear motive to feed Woods additional information that more explicitly connected Chachi to Petitioner when Godoy and Woods met again on November 20, 1992. Stuehringer informed the jury that it would have to decide how “credible” Keith Woods’ “second version” of events as reflected in his November 20, 1992 statement was when compared to his initial September 8, 1992 statement. In other words, Stuehringer attempted to characterize Woods’ two primary statements to Godoy as distinct and irreconcilable, rather than cohesive iterations of a single story about McCrimmon and Minnitt’s joint confession to Woods on the day he was released from prison. Stuehringer then argued to the jury that the real Chachi in this ease would prove to be Martin Garza.

Indeed, defense counsel’s decision to call Woods as a witness at all — when he otherwise would not have testified on behalf of the state — was based on this defense theory that Woods’ September 8, 1992 statement was exculpatory as to Petitioner because that statement did not expressly name or directly identify Petitioner as a perpetrator and provided an opportunity to argue that Martin Garza, McCrimmon’s close friend who was undis-putedly nicknamed Chachi, actually committed the crimes with McCrimmon and Minnitt. For that reason, Stuehringer (unsuccessfully) moved in limine to preclude the admission of Woods’ November 20, 1992 statement, which Stuehringer asserted raised confrontation clause problems because it included the alleged confessions of Fong’s co-defendants in a manner that more directly implicated Petitioner, but simultaneously sought to have Woods’ September 8, 1992 statement admitted in support of Petitioner’s mistaken identity defense.

Defense counsel’s decision to utilize Woods’ September 8, 1992 statement to pursue a mistaken identity defense may have been imperfect, considering that statement also included reference to Cha-chi being a market employee when Martin Garza undisputedly had never worked at the El Grande Market. But, imperfections in the defense theory do not otherwise render the original source of the name Chachi material to Petitioner’s innocence claim under Napue.

Instead, as the state PCR court realized, any testimony from Godoy that he obtained the name “Chachi” prior to his meeting with Woods on September 8, 1992, would have undermined rather than benefltted Petitioner’s mistaken identity defense because that defense required Stuehringer to minimize any connections between Petitioner and a so-called Chachi. Godoy’s investigative reports, which showed that he had the name “Chachi” prior to meeting with Woods on September 8, 1992, also problematically linked the name “Chachi” to “Martin Soto” and “Martin Fong.” Because of those connections, Stuehringer testified during the state PCR court evidentiary hearings that he sought to prevent Godoy from testifying to any of this information, resulting in Stuehringer’s objections when Peasley began to question Godoy about information obtained from Sergeant Zimmerling and other sources. In contrast to Godoy’s investigative reports, Keith Woods’ initial statement to Godoy on September 8, 1992, did not so directly tie Chachi to Petitioner. Indeed, Woods’ initial statement referred to Chachi wearing a mask, undermining the state theory that Chachi knew the store employees as a former employee himself and exploited their recognition of him to enter the store. Further, Woods testified that McCrimmon told him that Chachi lived on the street where Martin Garza lived. Based on these statements by Woods, the state PCR court reasonably concluded that Petitioner’s mistaken identity defense was bolstered by having the jury believe Woods’ September 8, 1992 statement that McCrimmon and Minnitt had confessed to committing the crime with a masked Chachi.

Petitioner’s characterization of his trial defense theory during his postconviction proceedings and before this Court is somewhat revisionist because he now claims that his defense theory was premised on Godoy feeding Woods the name Chachi during their September 8, 1992 meeting and fabricating that a Chachi was ever involved in the murders, making his defense theory more like that of his codefen-dants. Understandably, Petitioner wants to draw parallels to the trials of his co-defendants because Godoy and Peasley were found to have committed misconduct in those cases.

But his recharacterization not only contradicts the trial transcripts in this matter and Stuehringer’s articulation of the defense strategy during the state PCR evi-dentiary hearings, but it also fails to account for the key difference in Petitioner’s case as compared to the prosecutions of his co-defendants. Again, the state undis-putedly was not going to call Woods as a witness or present his September 8, 1992 and November 20, 1992 statements as evidence during Petitioner’s prosecution. Unlike his co-defendants, Petitioner never would have had to neutralize or otherwise attack Woods’ September 8, 1992 statement in order to establish his innocence at trial. If Petitioner did not want the jury to hear and believe that Woods had been told by McCrimmon and Minnitt that they committed the crimes with a Chachi, Petitioner had the option of not calling Woods as a witness and introducing a suspected Chachi into the proceedings. Petitioner offers no plausible explanation for why he would have chosen to call Woods as a defense witness if he only meant to demonstrate that Woods’ September 8, 1992 statement was false in its entirety and that Godoy fed Woods all of the information about a Chachi on that date.

As a result, the state PCR court was reasonable in concluding that neither Go-doy’s direct nor cross-examination testimony gave, a material false impression of the evidence in light of the mistaken identity defense that Petitioner advanced at trial, which hinged on the jury believing Woods’ initial account that a masked individual nicknamed Chachi, ie., Martin Garza, had committed the crimes with Minnitt and McCrimmon. This Court’s conclusion does not mean to suggest that a criminal defendant’s chosen defense theory can nullify what might otherwise be a false impression of the evidence caused by a state witness and left uncorrected by the prosecution. As Petitioner correctly points out, the state has a constitutional duty to correct false testimony given by its witnesses, even when the defense knows the testimony was false but does nothing to point out such falsity to the jury or judge. See, e.g., United States v. LaPage, 231 F.3d 488, 492

(9th Cir.2000) (“[T]he government’s duty to correct perjury by its witnesses is not discharged merely because defense counsel knows, and the jury may figure out, that the testimony was false.”).

However, on the facts of this case and under the AEDPA’s deferential review, Petitioner fails to show that the state PCR court’s rejection of his Napue claim involved an unreasonable application of controlling federal law. Again, Godoy never affirmatively testified that he first obtained the name “Chachi” from Woods. But even putting that fact aside, the original source of that nickname was not independently significant to or probative of Petitioner’s guilt or innocence outside the context of Petitioner’s defense strategy. And, in light of the testimonial evidence presented at trial, Petitioner also has not shown that the state PCR court engaged in an unreasonable determination of the facts when it concluded that the jury had otherwise been apprised that Godoy suspected Petitioner, if not a Chachi, prior to Godoy’s September 8, 1992 contact with Woods. The record reflects that the prosecution presented the jury with evidence that Godoy began to suspect Petitioner after he spoke with Sergeant Zimmerling on August 81, 1992, and shortly thereafter learned from the Gees that Petitioner was a former market employee, prior to Go-doy’s September 8, 1992 contact with Woods. As a result, Godoy’s testimony did not create a material false impression that Woods was the initial source of Go-doy’s suspicion of Fong or a former market employee.

Before the state PCR court, Petitioner also cited two statements Peasley made in closing argument at trial to support his position that the prosecutor, Peasley, went on to argue Godoy’s allegedly false testimony to the jury. Having found Godoy’s testimony not to be false or materially misleading, the state PCR court did not proceed to address expressly Peasley’s closing remarks. However, because Petitioner recites those remarks on appeal, we here conclude that Peasley’s comments in closing also do not render the state court’s decision denying his Napue claim unreasonable.

First, Peasley repeated in closing argument that the Tucson police did not suspect Petitioner or his co-defendants from June 24, 1992, until late August 1992, and stated directly after that that “[t]he first time that Detective Godoy is able to sit down and talk with anybody who gives him direct information about what happened i