Kelsay v. Ernst

Opinion handed down September 27, 2018

I. Introduction

            After an apparent misunderstanding at a local pool, Melanie Kelsay found herself arrested and seriously injured.[1]  She claimed a police officer used excessive force when arresting her, and she sued the officer for violating her rights under the Fourth Amendment.[2]  The officer responsible for Kelsay’s injuries moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity.[3]  The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska held the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity.[4]  On appeal, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, finding the officer did not violate Kelsay’s clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment.[5]

Shallow v. Follwell

Opinion handed down September 11,2018

The Supreme Court of Missouri issued a 6-1 opinion, holding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed an expert witness to deviate from his deposition testimony at trial nor when it admitted five medical experts with different specialties to testify about the case.[1]

Latham v. State

Opinion handed down September 11, 2018

            I. Facts and Holding

            In 2011, David Latham was charged with and subsequently pleaded guilty to trafficking drugs in violation of section 195.223 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.[1]  He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison.[2]  The plea court suspended the execution of his sentence, placing him on supervised probation for a period of five years.[3]  In August 2013, the plea court found Latham violated his probation and ordered execution of his fifteen-year sentence.[4]  In November 2013, after the execution of his sentence, Latham filed a pro se Supreme Court of Missouri Rule 24.025 motion for post-conviction relief.[5]  Latham’s motion alleged relief was warranted on three grounds:

(1) counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate why his preliminary hearing was waived; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to spend sufficient time with him to defend him at the revocation hearing; and (3) counsel was ineffective in that she misled him into believing she would request long-term drug treatment at his sentencing hearing.[6]