S-16-1196 State v. Jason William Custer (Appellant)
Cheyenne County District Court, Judge Derek C. Weimer
Attorneys: Melissa R. Vincent (Attorney General’s Office) --- Jason W. Custer (Pro se Appellant)
Criminal: Postconviction
Proceedings below: The district court denied Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.
Issues: The district court erred in 1) denying the appointment of counsel and dismissing the motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, contrary to Neb. Rev. St. §§ 29-3001 to 29-3004, 2) denying an evidentiary hearing and dismissing the motion for postconviction relief on the ground that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he elicited testimony from Dr. Peter Schilke on information that was not in evidence, information that he was not the originating expert on, which was substantially prejudicial to the appellant and undermined his right to call witnesses, and right to a fair trial, 3) in denying an evidentiary hearing and dismissing the motion on the ground that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he insisted that a key state witness was testifying falsely to information supported by the record and critical to movant’s self-defense defense, 4) denying an evidentiary hearing and dismissing the motion on the ground that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he cross-examined 0fficer James Russell Bush, 5) denying an evidentiary hearing and dismissing the motion on the ground that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest, when they failed to call rebuttal witness, and fellow law partner to the stand, 6) denying an evidentiary hearing and dismissing the motion on the ground that defense counsel was ineffective when he failed to object at critical junctures throughout the entirety of the trial, allowing prosecutors to go unchecked and commit multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the process, severely prejudicing the defendant and denying him a fair tria1, and 7) denying an evidentiary hearing and dismissing the motion on the ground that defense counsel was ineffective for not ensuring the court provided proper jury instructions, or a proper verdict form to all jurors, and omitted critical instructions on self-defense, assault, terroristic threats and other omissions that prejudiced the appellant from receiving a fair tria1, and denying procedural due process and due process of law, contrary to the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.