In the case of Napue v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a conviction obtained through false testimony is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, even if it was known to be false by representatives of the State but not corrected during trial. The petitioner, Henry Napue, had been convicted for murder based on testimonies which included one from a key witness who claimed he received no promise of consideration in return for his testimony against Napue. However, it was later revealed that prosecutors had indeed promised leniency to this witness in exchange for his cooperation - information withheld from both defense and jury during trial proceedings. The court held that such conduct fell short of standards mandated by due process as it could have influenced the judgment rendered by jurors thereby affecting overall fairness and integrity of fact-finding processes within trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Napue v. Illinois, it was argued that there was no constitutional violation in this case because the prosecution did not knowingly use perjured testimony to secure a conviction. The dissenting justices felt that while the prosecutor's failure to correct false testimony may have been an error, it did not rise to the level of a deliberate attempt to deceive the court and jury. They also pointed out that even if such deception had occurred, it would be difficult or impossible for any court reviewing after-the-fact to determine whether this actually influenced the outcome of trial. Therefore, they believed that unless there is clear evidence showing both intentional prosecutorial misconduct and significant impact on trial results due only to said misconduct, no constitutional issue arises warranting reversal of conviction.