No. 19-8168

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. Indiana

Lower Court: Indiana
Docketed: 2020-04-02
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-violation court-procedure due-process fabricated-facts first-amendment first-amendment-right-to-petition judicial-misconduct libel-and-defamation newly-discovered-evidence redress-of-grievances right-to-petition slander
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2020-05-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Justise has a right to have the facts and issues he presents to a court for redress actually addressed, and what remedy he has if this right is violated

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. issue of First Impression) Whether Justise has a right, pursuant to the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances Clause of the 1s‘ Amendment to have the facts and issues he presents to a court for redress, actually addressed, and if the court violates this right, what remedy does Justise have? 2. (Issue of First Impression) Whether a court commits slander by stating that Justise took a position or made an argument that makes Justise look guilty, when Justise never took that position or made that argument. : 3. Ussue of First Impression) Whether a court is permitted to make up their own facts for this case, that is not supported by the record, or advanced by either party of the case. . 4. (Issue of First Impression) If a court publishes a decision that is riddled with false statements that makes Justise look guilty, when he is not, whether that is libel, slander and/or defamation, and what remedy does Justise have to correct that error. 5. Whether Former prosecutor Michelle Wall, who forced a 13 year old child witness to lie on the stand, and under oath during trial, should have been called as a witness? 6. Whether Michelle Wall violated Brady by not informing the defense that she instructed a child to lie on the stand, and whether Wall destroyed exculpatory evidence, showing that Justise is actually innocent of all charges. 7. Whether Justise should have been allowed to question the alleged victims Aunt, Ashley Jackson, on what the alleged victim told her during a phone conversation. 8. Whether newly discovered evidence shows that Justise is actually innocent, along with corroborating evidence. 9. Whether DB’s testimony is worthy of credit. : 3 ; Vole. ‘ |

Docket Entries

2020-06-01
Petition DENIED.
2020-05-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/28/2020.
2020-05-01
Waiver of right of respondent Indiana to respond filed.
2020-03-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 4, 2020)

Attorneys

Charles E. Justise, Sr.
Charles E. Justise Sr. — Petitioner
Indiana
Stephen Richard Creason — Respondent