Right to present a defense
Robert Alvin Justus, Jr. v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Justus asked the Court to review Ninth Circuit rulings allowing social-media posts and “likes” he said prejudiced the jury by highlighting his politics, and an instruction to ignore his state-of-mind defense because his words could also describe duress unavailable at trial.
- Who it affects
- The Ninth Circuit’s rulings remain in effect in Justus’s case, but the Supreme Court did not approve them or decide the legal questions.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.

What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review) and did not decide either issue.
Justus framed the evidence issue as jury prejudice and the instruction issue as a limit on his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.
Question presented
1. In a first-degree murder case, was the Ninth Circuit’s approval of the admission of social media posts and “likes” of posts, specifically intended to prejudice the jury by highlighting petitioner’s political beliefs, the kind of egregious error that brings the judicial system into disrepute and results in a miscarriage of justice, warranting this Court’s exercise of its institutional interest in ensuring that the legal proceeding was fair to all who observed it? 2. Given a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present testimony in his own words in his defense at trial, should the court be permitted to instruct the jury to ignore his state-of-mind defense if the words he chose could also describe an unavailable duress defense?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.