United States v. Cook

Opinion handed down November 22, 2016

The link to the United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit Opinion 

In United States v. Cook, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that defendant Lamar Cook was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when police officers pulled up behind the parked car Cook was sitting in and activated their cruiser’s “wig wag” lights, because “a reasonable person seeing the wig wag lights under these circumstances would have thought that he was still ‘at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.’”^[1]  This conclusion is strikingly inconsistent with the common understanding of the meaning of police emergency lights.

Piloski v. Division of Employment Security

Opinion handed down October 25, 2016

 The link to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District Opinion

While Missouri’s unemployment security laws are aimed at protecting employees who have become unemployed through no fault of their own, significant questions remain as to whether these laws are actually interpreted as broadly as they can be by the courts.

Smotherman v. Cass Regional Medical Center

Opinion handed down September 20, 2016

The link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

            In Smotherman v. Cass Regional Medical Center, the Supreme Court of Missouri addressed the issue of whether a juror’s testimony regarding the extent to which misconduct affected jury deliberations is sufficient to overcome the presumption of prejudice created by the misconduct.[1]  As discussed below, the court’s decision represents a step back from recent decisions that attempted to clarify the extrinsic evidence exemption to the Mansfield Rule and ignores past decisions regarding the weight that should be assigned to such testimony.  

Boeving v. Kander

Opinion handed down September 20, 2016

The link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

            The Supreme Court of Missouri has held that the Missouri statutes governing the procedural requirements for an “official ballot title” cannot be construed as requiring the rejection of signatures in the event the official ballot title is amended through litigation after the petition has been properly approved and circulated for signatures.[1]  However, the court held that the substantives challenges regarding the possible effects of the constitutional amendment, if passed, are necessarily premature and will not be ruled on at this point.[2]

State v. Meeks

Opinion handed down August 23, 2016

The link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

In an effort to maximize judicial efficiency at the trial court level, race-neutral explanations for defending a Batson challenge exercised by defense counsel are seemingly becoming mere formalities – issues which are left for appellate courts to flesh out.  While juries are typically notorious (and justifiably so) for wanting trials to be more expeditious, prosecutors and defense counsel should expend all of their efforts in voir dire in order to obtain justice at the trial level for the criminal defendant.

City of DeSoto v. Nixon,

Opinion handed down January 12, 2016

The link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

            In City of DeSoto v. Nixon, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that a law excluding cities that meet six narrowly drawn criteria from a generally applicable procedure for making post-annexation payments to a fire protection district violated Missouri’s constitutional prohibition against special laws.[1]