In Re Lennie Dartez Mathis

ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN A THEATRICAL FRAUD AND DUE PROCESS Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is violated under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), where the State medical expert who performed the autopsy testifies under oath to the location of entrance and exit wounds and the state possesses a medical examiner’s report documenting a front-facing entrance wound with intermediate-range stippling—inconsistent with a "back-of-the-head, point-blank execution" that they State witness testified to, and used to establish malice aforethought—yet the prosecutor participates in and a theatrical courtroom reenactment of that false narrative and vouches for the witness and instructs jurors they must either adopt that account or acquit.

COLLAPSE OF ADVERSARIAL TESTING Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is violated under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), where the State medical expert who performed the autopsy testifies under oath to the location of entrance and exit wounds and the state possesses a medical examiner’s report documenting a front-facing entrance wound with intermediate-range stippling—inconsistent with a "back-of-the-head, point-blank execution" that they State witness testified to, and used to establish malice aforethought—yet the prosecutor participates in and a theatrical courtroom reenactment of that false narrative and vouches for the witness and instructs jurors they must either adopt that account or acquit and-prejudice standard articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

ACTUAL-INNOCENCE GATEWAY (New science applied to old data) Whether the actual-innocence gateway under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), as applied in House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), and extended to time-barred petitions in McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) is satisfied where newly developed 3D forensic animation with trajectories/ballistics/ heights/angles/ mathematic equations now showing how the shooter and victim was positioned when gun was fired, analysis of autopsy data—never presented to a jury—demonstrates that the State’s execution theory is physically impossible and inconsistent with the documented wound path and stippling patterns, such that no reasonable juror would find Petitioner guilty of shooting the victim in back of the head at point blank range beyond a reasonable doubt - AKo fcoocM AP (L

SUPPRESSION OF CRITICAL EVIDENCE (Due Process) Whether due process is violated, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), where the State suppresses the identity and the active roll Mr. Edwards played at the scene after the shooting and the statements of a known eyewitness who arrived with others, handled the victim’s body, declared her dead, and left the scene, and conspiracy to conceal his presence by all witnesses to the jury, and state played a long— this evidence would have corroborated self-defense, explained the disappearance of a weapon, and undermined the prosecution’s theory of guilt.