The GravE Situation the State of Mississippi Judiciary now finds itself in HAS CONTINUED TO TOLL. It truly hit home with me this Christmas as I realized all that has been lost over the past 4 years.
Not only for myself but society as a whole. All lost time and opportunities with my family and my kids. And the fact that this vicious legal atrocity spinning further and further out of control far passed the definition of “On Tilt” because they picked a fight, the wrong fight, with the wrong one this time. So I took a little time after wrapping my mind around the very quick denial issued by Judge Chris Childers on 12/8/21 in response to the detailed Rule 59 Motion I filed in Lafayette County Justice Court on 12/6/21.
FIRST AND FOREMOST THE CONTROLLING LEGAL JURISPRUDENCE THAT STANDS OUT UPON DOING A LITTLE EXTRA DIGGING INTO THIS PARTICULAR MATTER COMES FROM FEDERAL COURT WHICH GOES ON TO STATE:
A state-court decision is contrary to federal law if the state court applies a rule that contradicts controlling Supreme Court authority or “if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision” of the Supreme Court, but nevertheless arrives at a different result. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 406 (2000).
[The [Supreme] Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 (1976) (footnotes omitted)
A state denies a criminal defendant due process when it knowingly uses perjured testimony at trial or allows untrue testimony to go uncorrected. Faulder v. Johnson, 81 F.3d 515, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 995, 117 S.Ct. 487, 136 L.Ed.2d 380 (1996), citing, Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). To prove a due process violation based upon a prosecutor's use of perjured testimony, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate that (1) the testimony was actually false; (2) the state knew that it was false; and (3) the testimony was material. See id; Boyle v. Johnson, 93 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1120, 117 S.Ct. 968, 136 L.Ed.2d 853 (1997).
ALL 3 OF THE STATED CRITERIA PROVING DUE PROCESS VIOLATION HAVE BEEN MET AND DOCUMENTED VIA MOTION BY THE DEFENSE
To constitute a due process violation, the prosecutorial misconduct must be “of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Greer v. Miller, 485 U.S. 756, 765 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).
Under this standard, a petitioner must show there is a reasonable probability the error complained of affected the outcome of the trial—i.e., that absent the alleged impropriety, the verdict probably would have been different
I wholeheartedly believe that I have both sufficiently raised the issue/matter and in fact the particular serious grievances involving what evidence entered at trial proves to not only be perjured testimony introduced at trial. but perjured testimony which went uncorrected by the prosecution. The combination of the two most certainly rises above and beyond the aforementioned standard required to constitute a due process violation and more than one had occurred.
Prejudice is actual harm resulting from the alleged constitutional violation. Thomas v. Lewis,945 F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 1991). In the extraordinary case, “[a] fundamental miscarriage of justice’ occurs when `a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.'” Boyd v. Thompson,147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Murray,477 U.S. at 495-496, 106 S.Ct. 2639).
I would now make the notion that denial of Defendant’s Rule 59 Motion harbors on a true fundamental miscarriage of justice occurring.
In an effort to attempt to curve compliance back to normal, operable judicial and legal standards and in an effort of good faith prior to filing a petition in District Court, I would respectfully ask that Judge Chris Childers reconsider his order given 12/8/2021.
Lafayette County and the State of Mississippi MUST take accountability for that which it directly created. It must come to the understanding based on all facts known and presented that it’s own foul, immoral, and unlawful decisions can 100% directly be attributable to creating the massive legal turmoil and in turn the perceivable “monster” that certain individuals reading this email would make me out to be. If we are to completely ignore all prior jurisprudence and long decided case law, then where does that leave us as a society? The answer my friends becomes a lawless society, without care for the rights of one which makes us not care about the rights of all. It’s one of the biggest reasons I have Preached on the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution which guarantees equality through guaranteeing to all citizens the fundamental right to equal protection of the laws meant to apply to all.
I believe we all need to take some self-accountability. I certainly believe those appointed or elected to positions of authority within the Government MUST be held to a much higher standard of accountability than those who aren’t, in order to prevent future miscarriages of justice such as this or worse from happening.