stand on the basis of such false material evidence violated his constitutional rights, and we reversed the denial of habeas relief. Id. at 985 (reversing the denial of habeas relief “[bjecause false and material evidence was admitted at [petitioner’s] trial in violation of his due process rights”). The Second Circuit has similarly explained that “[i]t is simply intolerable ... if a state allows an innocent person to remain incarcerated on the basis of lies.” Sanders v. Sullivan, 863 F.2d 218, 224 (2d Cir.1988) (reversing the denial of habeas relief and holding that the petitioner’s due process rights were violated when the petitioner in that case was convicted based on the material testimony of a witness who recanted); see also United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, 473 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Here, we have resolved the threshold factual
holding that the perjury by a key government witness irrespective of whether the government knew of the perjury at the time of trial infected the trial proceedings and required reversal holding an individuals admission to a government agent prior to trial that he had previously committed perjury did not waive his privilege to invoke the fifth amendment as to that matter at trial holding that allegations of perjury require a demonstration that the witnesses actually committed perjury holding that plaintiff had failed to make showing required by favish where he alleged that government informant committed perjury at his trial because such assertion even if stated in sworn affidavit of plaintiff was too insubstantial to establish likelihood of government impropriety holding that a conviction violated due process because the prosecutor knowingly allowed a government witness to commit perjury