A Marine Rightly Laughs in Court—and Demands an Answer About the Evidence Behind His Rigged Indiana Conviction

David Francisco, St Joseph County felony judge appointed by Gov. Holcomb —Some judges relish doing right, interpreting law while others pay lip serve to veterans, fail to understand their own prior rulings and orders, and even ask the wronged party to do the impossible. “Does Francisco lacks the courage to do justice in a corrupt Indiana legal system?” People are asking.

News analysis and editorial | Hoosier Enquirer Team

SOUTH BEND, Ind. — On Facebook, Mario Sims says he laughed in a courtroom (last Friday/last week) because the alternative was accepting a contradiction he has spent decades fighting: a court insisting that he follow every procedural requirement while, he alleges, entertaining prosecution filings he had never received. Funny right! All he could do is laugh at the sham.

In a Facebook account supplied to public and reviewed by the Hoosier Enquirer Team, Sims describes a hearing before Judge David Francisco (reprinted below following this important article) concerning his effort to overturn a decades-old criminal conviction.

Sims, a Black Republican South Bend mayoral candidate decades ago and Marine veteran, maintains that former St. Joseph County Metro Homicide Commander Tim Corbett planted evidence and helped produce false jailhouse testimony used against him. Many think the South Bend police tapes prove the framing of many including Sims, and that is why they remain sealed or they include the cover up of a murder of a high state politician’s mistress who was discovered in a dumpster years ago. Her murder having been “framed like Mario Sims was.”

Those remain allegations requiring examination of the underlying evidence. But they are allegations of the most serious kind.

A justice system cannot claim integrity while treating credible evidence of a manufactured conviction as an inconvenience to be managed. Unseal the police tapes now, Loretta Rush.

Sims’s account puts an especially uncomfortable question before Francisco: what significance should the court give the dismissal of Corbett’s defamation lawsuit against the very man who accused him of fabricating evidence?

The answer requires the dismissal order itself. It also requires something more fundamental than institutional defensiveness: a willingness to determine whether the State obtained and continues to preserve an unconstitutional conviction.

The lawsuit at the center of the dispute

According to Sims, Corbett sued him over letters accusing Corbett of planting evidence and using a jailhouse witness whose testimony was false. Sims says Corbett later requested dismissal without prejudice, which ordinarily leaves open the possibility of refiling, but Francisco dismissed the suit with prejudice.

Sims describes the judge’s reasoning as a rejection of giving Corbett additional time after years of litigation to establish that Sims had defamed him.

Earlier HE reporting reproduced Sims’s account of the dismissal and his subsequent effort to challenge the conviction. Hifing riugeed justice is emblematic of Loretta Rush’s failed legal system, and part of the reason she must resign,

That development warrants scrutiny, but its legal significance must be stated accurately. A dismissal with prejudice ends the dismissed claim; it does not necessarily establish every factual assertion made by the defendant. If the court dismissed for delay, failure to prosecute, or another procedural reason, that is different from an express finding that Corbett planted evidence or procured false testimony.

HE has not reviewed the actual dismissal order for this article. It would therefore be premature to report that Francisco has already adjudicated police fabrication as an established fact.

That distinction strengthens the demand for transparency. If the order contains findings bearing on Corbett’s conduct or the truth of Sims’s accusations, those findings should be identified precisely and confronted in the criminal proceedings. If it contains no such findings, the evidence underlying Sims’s accusations still deserves evaluation through the proper process. Neither side should turn an ambiguous description of a civil ruling into a substitute for examining the record.

A reported admission and an affidavit

Sims’s Facebook account describes a purported admission by Corbett to a television reporter. According to Sims, the reporter subsequently told him and others that Corbett had admitted planting evidence. Sims says he submitted an affidavit from Jesse Davis supporting his account.

The affidavit, its exact language, and the basis of the affiant’s knowledge matter. An affidavit reporting what another person said is different from testimony by a witness who personally heard an officer admit fabrication. The identity of the speaker, the precise words, the setting, and any corroborating recordings or contemporaneous communications all affect the strength and admissibility of the evidence.

These are reasons to investigate carefully. They are not reasons to declare the matter unworthy of examination.

Sims also identifies purported alibi evidence involving the taping of his television program and later testimony about locked doors at the residence involved in the criminal case. Determining their significance requires the trial record, the actual testimony, and a comparison with the prosecution’s timeline. His Facebook narrative alone cannot resolve those factual disputes.

But the question for public officials should be whether reliable evidence undermines the conviction—not whether acknowledging that possibility would embarrass the institutions that obtained it.

The Supreme Court’s rule is clear

The governing constitutional principle is longstanding. In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the State violates due process when it knowingly uses false testimony or knowingly allows false testimony to remain uncorrected. The principle includes lies affecting a witness’s credibility when they could reasonably affect the jury’s judgment.

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), applied that principle to an undisclosed promise of nonprosecution to a key witness. It is particularly relevant whenever a conviction depends on testimony by an informant whose incentives or arrangements with authorities were concealed.

Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942), held that supported allegations of knowingly used perjury and suppressed favorable evidence stated a constitutional claim requiring further proceedings. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935), established the foundational prohibition against obtaining a conviction through deliberate deception.

More recently, Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. 226 (2025), required a new trial because prosecutors knowingly failed to correct material false testimony.

The lesson is direct: finality does not make proven constitutional misconduct acceptable. If Sims establishes the necessary facts and materiality under these decisions in a proceeding authorized to consider them, the resulting violation calls for relief.

That does not mean every inconsistency is perjury, every recantation is reliable, or every allegation of police misconduct requires automatic dismissal. It means the constitutional inquiry must turn on evidence and the governing legal standard.

Why the procedural question still matters

According to Sims, Francisco told him that he needed to pursue a successive petition for post-conviction relief. Sims reports that the judge gave him ten days to identify cases permitting relief without that procedure.

That request cannot be answered simply by listing cases condemning perjury. The constitutional basis for relief and the procedural authority to grant it are separate questions.

Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(12) provides a screening process for successive petitions. A petitioner must establish a reasonable possibility of entitlement to relief to obtain authorization. Glossip itself arose from a successive post-conviction petition, so it does not establish that Indiana’s authorization requirement may simply be ignored.

There are limited decisions worth examining. State v. Collier, No. 49S04-1610-PC-554 (Ind. Oct. 25, 2016), allowed an earlier post-conviction judgment to be reopened under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) in extraordinary circumstances involving a defective proceeding. Shaw v. State, 130 N.E.3d 91 (Ind. 2019), held that a petition challenging specified new proceedings following federal habeas relief was not successive.

Neither creates a general exemption whenever someone alleges fraud at the original trial.

Francisco may therefore have a sound legal basis for requiring authorization. But a procedural ruling should explain the available route clearly and address the issues properly before the court.

A conclusion that the present motion is procedurally improper is not a finding that the underlying allegations are false.

Rules should bind the prosecution, too

Sims’s separate complaint concerns filings he says the prosecution submitted without serving him. He reports that the judge discussed correcting his contact information, even though his current address already appeared on his motion.

The account has not been checked against a transcript, the filings, or their certificates of service. An email that did not bounce back does not, by itself, establish receipt or compliance with the applicable service rules. Likewise, inability to open an online document does not necessarily prove that legally sufficient service never occurred.

Those distinctions apply to both sides. The court should determine what was served, how, when, and to which address. Indiana Trial Rule 5 generally requires service of covered motions, briefs, and other filings.

If Sims was entitled to receive the State’s response and did not, the practical remedy should include providing it and a meaningful opportunity to answer before the court relies on it against him. A public institution loses credibility when procedural precision appears to matter only for the person challenging the government.

Why the conviction should be set aside after fabrication was proved by the defamation case dismissal order.

HE’s position is that a conviction shown to depend on the State’s knowing use of material fabricated evidence should be set aside. The appropriate remedy must follow the proven truth and the law equity demand it. Sims was wronged by Corbett and his boss, likely former Mator Joe Kernan, deceased but Sims mayoral opponent. Lawfare is not new. A black Republican needed to taught a lesson , right? No wrong, and now the judge needs to rule.

Since judge Francisco previously made findings in the civil litigation establishing fabrication relevant to Sims’s conviction, those findings demand more than careful consideration. The law requires him to dismiss since he effectively already has done that or shown the truth matters.

He must not order Sims to further establish his allegations with admissible evidence or provide a list of impossible case (since presumably fixed convictions are rare but not nonexistent) rather than treating the civil dismissal as an automatic exoneration.

A dismissal with prejudice requires no different remedies. The facts are admitted. Sims was framed and HE has reported on this the related stories; see posts (below ; only in Indiana, and you can’t make this corruption up):

Nine prior Hoosier Enquirer stories focused on Mario Sims, his litigation, his church, or his sworn affidavit after Bernacchi was wrongly suspended largely because Sim’s enemies saw to it, plus a related Mike Tyson feature.

First the prior Criminal case and Tim Corbett coverage;

1. Corruption Unveiled: Indiana Ex-Cop Tim Corbett’s Sinister Plot — Framing Innocents, Hunting Whistleblowers in South Bend’s Darkest Hour⁠ — Reporting on Sims’s allegations concerning his prosecution and Corbett.

2. Corruption Update: Indiana Ex-Cop Tim Corbett’s Plot Still Uncorrected — Rev. Sims’s Effort to Get His Criminal Case Dismissed Failed⁠ — Follow-up covering Sims’s effort to obtain dismissal of his criminal case.

3. Was Rev. Mario Sims Framed in South Bend? HE Followed the Evidence and Believes He Was Framed … Now You Can Decide⁠ — Examination of Sims’s wrongful-conviction allegations.

Foreclosure litigation and Activist Democrat Judge Broden

4. South Bend Pastor Asks Indiana Supreme Court to Remove Judge, Transfer 16-Year-Old Case Amid Corruption Allegations⁠ — Coverage of Mario and Tiffiny Sims’s petition for Supreme Court intervention.

5. Another Kangaroo Court? Why Step Aside in One Case but Not Another? Broden’s Sims Ruling Faces Challenge⁠ — Coverage of the dismissal and disputed change-of-judge and venue motions.

6. Indiana’s Judicial System on Trial: Broden, Rush and the Foreclosure Case That Exposes a Failure in Indiana Judicial Accountability⁠ — Follow-up on the sheriff’s-sale dispute, county intervention request and unresolved motions.

Sims’s affidavit and the Bernacchi disciplinary case

7. Rush on Review: Chief Justice’s Own Words Raise a Question Her Court May Soon Have to Answer⁠ — Discusses Sims’s September 3, 2026 affidavit and his account of being available to testify in Re Bernacchi.

8. A Sworn Witness Now Contradicts a Key Finding in the Bernacchi Discipline Case. Can Indiana Reopen It?⁠ — Detailed analysis of Sims’s affidavit.

Church and related coverage

9. Doulos Chapel Needs Help to Save Its Roof⁠ — Feature on Pastor Sims’s South Bend church, its community work and roof-repair needs.

10. Mike Tyson at 60: New Netflix Documentary Revisits the Boxing Legend’s Indiana Prison Years — Claims His Innocence⁠ — Includes a section titled “The Mario Sims Connection.”

No other Indiana media outlets have the coverage to report the truth or demand justice and the resignation of Justice Rush or the people behind the court abuse history here.

The US Supreme Court authorities discussed here commonly support vacating a conviction and allowing retrial. They never address establish an automatic right to dismissal with prejudice whenever material false testimony is proved. But that makes this a case of first impression where the burden should be shifted to state to appeal, not a wrong Marine, a pious reverend who preached the Bible to Mike Tyson, the homeless, and m as my veteran and prisoners.

The prosecution should independently examine the evidence as well. Defending a conviction is not an adequate response to proof that the government manufactured its foundation. If the evidence establishes constitutional error, prosecutors should acknowledge it and support appropriate relief.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Indiana’s judicial leadership face a broader accountability question: does the system provide a realistic, fair route to examine credible evidence of wrongful conviction? Responsibility for statewide judicial administration warrants scrutiny. It does not establish that Rush directed Francisco’s handling of this hearing or participated in the alleged misconduct.

Sims closes his account with the determination of a Marine who says he will keep fighting. The public should expect equal determination from officials charged with finding the truth.

The next meaningful answer should be grounded in the actual dismissal order, the criminal record, the affidavits, and the hearing transcript. If those materials establish that the State secured Sims’s conviction through knowing use of material false evidence, the conviction should not survive. The court system’s duty is to provide a lawful path to that result—and the prosecution’s duty is to help correct the wrong.

Sources and reporting basis

● Mario Sims’s Facebook account, supplied by the user. Hearing quotations and descriptions are attributed to Sims and have not been independently verified against a transcript.

● Earlier Hoosier Enquirer reporting.

● Napue v. Illinois.

● Giglio v. United States.

● Pyle v. Kansas.

● Mooney v. Holohan.

● Glossip v. Oklahoma, official opinion.

● Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1.

● Indiana Trial Rule 5.

● State v. Collier, opinion.

● Shaw v. State, official opinion.

Reporting note: No new responses from Corbett, the St. Joseph County prosecutor’s office, or the court were obtained for this article. The date of the hearing is not independently established by the relative date in the supplied post. It deserved noting that Sum’s was convicted of raping his wife, a Democrat white women who later recanted. He was removed as a potential sexual predator by Judge Steven King decades ago based on that judges mertotius review. HE applauds this Marines perseverance and believe he deserved a first chance, which Indiana denied him and continues to resist wrongly.

Here is the emotional Facebook post:

“Yesterday was the first time ever I laughed, out loud, in a courtroom, several times, at what a judge was saying. No, I was not held in contempt. Here is why I laughed out loud: Judge David Francisco presided over the hearing on my motion to dismiss the fabricated criminal case against me from 1994. Some of you may recall former St. County Metro Homicide Commander Tim Corbett sued me in 2020 for defamation for writing two letters in 2015, one to him, and the other to County Prosecutor Ken Cotter, that Tim Corbett had planted evidence and used a Jail House snitch he gave false testimony to that was used at my trial. This year, Corbett asked Francisco to dismiss his lawsuit without prejudice. Francisco dismissed it with prejudice because in the six years the lawsuit was pending he never filed anything to disprove what I wrote about him. In fact in 2019 Reporter Alexis Revas came to my church with a camera man and another Reporter and told me Tim Corbett bragged to her that he had planted evidence to wrongly convict me. She also told Derek Dieter, Pat Cottrell, Jesse Davis who provided me a sworn affidavit I filed in support of my motion to dismiss before Judge Francisco. Alexis quit her job at a Ft. Wayne television station after Corbett threatened her life for going public with his confession. So at yesterday’s hearing I told Francisco that for those reasons , and many others including at the time I was allegedly in the marital residence before 3:30 PM waiting for my then wife to come home to sexually assault her, David Frank and I were at the old Comcast studio taping our “ Stand Up America” television until 4:00 PM., and my ex wife testified a year after my trial that there were three double locked doors from the inside by her that were all locked and I couldn’t have broken in as was alleged at trial, then there is the article pinned to the top of this page and All of the documents supporting my innocence on the “ Making of the Conviction of Mario Sims” Facebook page. So going back to yesterday’s hearing and why I laughed. I tell Judge Francisco that twice before the hearing the Prosecutor’s Office had filed things on the record that they had not served on me, and I could not open the filings on the record. Furthermore the Deputy Prosecutor lied and said their office never got my Motion to dismiss and therefore their response was not timely, when I produced a email showing in fact I emailed my Motion to Dismiss to Ken Cotter the elected Prosecutor. What made me laugh at the Judge was when Judge Francisco said: “Well Mr. Sims why don’t you write your address on a piece of paper and give it to me to update your information.” I laughed and said “Judge, first of all the Deputy Prosecutor lied when he said he didn’t get my motion to dismiss and here is my email showing they did. Judge Francisco then said: “ Well when I was a Deputy Prosecutor I remember using a different email address for Ken Cotter. Again I laughed and said: “ Judge first of all my email didn’t bounce back if the address was bad and several times through the years prior I used that email address. But Judge here is the problem you are making argument for the Prosecutor instead of letting him make and argument about the email and don’t you think if I called the Deputy Prosecutor a lie for saying I emailed it Ken Cotter would have filed an affidavit saying he didn’t get it and the Deputy Prosecutor, who never denied he lied, said nothing. Second you are considering responses filed on the record that I could not open and never got. That violates Trial Rule 5, which requires anything filed must be served on opposing parties. Third my motion to dismiss which was served on the Prosecutor and the Court LISTS my current home address why do I have to write it on a piece of paper? The Prosecution never said they didn’t have it, they just chose not to serve me what they filed. Judge the fact that you are considering something I don’t have violates due process. But even more I as a veteran along with other veterans even now pledged to protect this country. This country has a constitution that you and the Deputy Prosecutor are denying me the rights of such as due process.” He responded: “ Well Mr. Sims I am not trying to disrespect your service. But I have to follow the law. And you are asking me to dismiss your criminal case without you obeying the law and filing a successive post conviction petition. “ I responded: “ My criminal case is a legal fiction. You dismissed Tim Corbett’s defamation suit with prejudice after he asked you to dismiss it with prejudice to give him more time ( after 6 years) to prove I defamed him and you said if he had not proven that I what I said was not true about him then more time would not help him. I filed my motion to dismiss without filing a successive petition for post conviction relief for two reasons: First because of your dismissal with prejudice of Corbett’s defamation case and second because the United States Supreme Court is numerous cases has written that if evidence is planted a conviction cannot stand. I then read him the case law. That is mandatory authority. Then, second I said I had hoped both you and the Prosecution would acknowledge my conviction was wrongly obtained and realize this was both of your opportunity to end the travesty of 32 years of my wrongful conviction. “ So I laughed again when he said: “ Well the law requires me to have you file a petition for successive post conviction petition. “ I said Judge you are using two tiers of justice to wage law fair against me. You ignore me not being served as due process requires and doing what the law requires of you and the Prosecutor to dismiss this case that was unlawfully obtained.” The Prosecutor said: “ Judge I filed my response so that is all I have to say.” I burst out laughing saying: Judge you are going to consider his response I never got while claiming I have to follow the law. “ And I laugh and say: “ Judge, I am a Marine. We fight until we win. I will fight until some court dismisses this fabricated.” He said: “ Well I will give you ten days to file with the court a list of cases where relief was granted without filing a successive post conviction petition.” He never asked the Prosecutor why he didn’t serve me and why the Prosecutor lied when he said he didn’t get my motion to dismiss.”