Somewhat tangential to why most people are following this story, but you might ask: if Tara Reade perjured herself about education or experience in testifying as a prosecution expert, can the convicted defendants get relief?

lol please, this is America
/1 https://twitter.com/natashakorecki/status/1263686426455089157?s=20

/2 Newly discovered evidence of witness perjury can form the basis for an attack on a prior conviction -- but the rigorous standard is terribly unfavorable for the defendant and ludicrously favorable to uphold the conviction.

/3 Prosecutors will say that Tara Reade lying about her education only goes to her credibility, and only impeaches her, and therefore isn't enough.

/4 “[N]ewly discovered evidence which would merely impeach or discredit a witness does not compel the granting of a new trial ....” (People v. Moten (1962) 207 http://Cal.App .2d 692, 698

/5 Moreover, the defendant must show materiality, meaning that it is more probable than not that introducing the evidence of perjury would lead to a different result at trial. That's that materiality again.

/6 Note that the question is not "would the jury realize that the government unreflectively hires hacks and liars as experts without vetting them, and therefore question EVERYTHING," which is a different more meta question. It's "would this cause a different result. "

/7 Other arguments the government will make: that the evidence is "merely cumulative" because the defense lawyers already questioned Reade about her qualifications and attacked, them, and that the defense failed to show "due diligence" because it didn't discover this by itself.

/8 (There is no requirement that the government have exercised due diligence in selecting an expert and presenting their testimony.)

/9 Moreover, because this type of how-victims-act testimony is, to be blunt, boilerplate and rote, the government would likely argue that the government could easily have fixed the problem by throwing ANOTHER witness on the stand.

/10 In short, "A motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is viewed with disfavor, and a trial court's denial of such a motion rarely will result in a reversal on appeal."(People v. Mehserle (2012) 206 http://Cal.App .4th 1125, 1151. Yeah, no shit. /end