By: dmc-admin//June 4, 2001//
“Tayborn argues that several inconsistencies in his testimony rendered his testimony perjurious and that the prosecution should have known it was perjurious. However, Tayborn only points to collateral inconsistencies in Murchinson’s testimony like: 1) whether he heard a noise before looking down from the porch to see the attackers; 2) whether he gave the police the names of Tayborn and his brothers; 3) the number of shots fired; and 4) whether he gave a physical description of the other men involved.
“None of these supposed inconsistencies go to the heart of Murchinson’s testimony – that Tayborn committed the crimes charged. We have emphasized, and the district judge recognized, that mere inconsistencies in the testimony of a government witness fall short of establishing that the government knowingly used false testimony and that ‘the alleged perjured testimony must bear a direct relationship to the defendant’s guilt or innocence.’ United States v. Magana, 118 F.3d 1173, 1191 (7th Cir. 1997). Because none of Tayborn’s alleged inconsistencies with respect to Murchinson relate directly to the question of the petitioner’s guilt or innocence, his habeas petition cannot succeed on this ground.”
Affirmed.
99-2317 Tayborn v. Scott
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Marovich, J., Coffey, J.