We have been constrained to point out, on numerous occasions, that the only import of the Giglio case is that prosecutors cannot circumvent Brady requirements by handing off the trial to a different prosecutor. That is, the whole prosecutor’s office is bound by Brady, not just the one lawyer who tries the case.
Beyond that, Giglio is a Brady case – it post dates Brady; Napue is not a Brady case – it pre-dates Brady.
There is no “Napue-Giglio rule”, or at least never has been until Long v. Pfister came out of Judge Easterbrook’s pen, writing for the majority of an en banc 7th circuit panel.
We’ll have to revisit this highly problematic case again. Soon. It may be SCOTUS bound.
But briefly, before we leave the topic for now, we can’t help notice that Judge Easterbrook’s opinion is way behind the curve at least in one way: we had a row with a commenter over the “unknown to the defense” requirement over two years ago.