500 Laurel Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Phone - 612.217.0077
Fax - 651.344.0700
Lawyer Landon Ascheman
Featured Attorney Criminal Defense
A perfect example of why it is very important to know your elements and how they apply in your case. A11-1314 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Christopher James Hayes, Appellant.
Just another showing that the world of Post-Conviction Relief is difficult. It is always better to make every effort to get everything right the first time. A12-0310 Jermaine Ferguson, petitioner, Appellant, vs.
More trial issues this week. Here we take a look at "curtilage" and "incriminating nature." Despite these issues, proper jury instructions are key. If the jury doesn't know what they are required to decide, the entire trial is for naught.
A11-240 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Brandon Dominic Cox, Appellant. Hennepin County.
A10-0731 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jerome Emmanuel Davis, Appellant. Hennepin County.
Today's case review is focused on Jury Instructions. This is one of the final stages in a proper criminal trial. However, the Jury Instructions are probably one of the most important aspects, except maybe the Jury Verdict Form.
An interesting attempt to combat a vehicle forfeiture. In this case, the vehicle was to be forfeit due to a First Degree DUI conviction. But, the defense claimed that due to the value of the vehicle, there was a real-property homestead-exemption.
Post Conviction Relief is a complicated situation. There are some things that will almost always get you a hearing and some that almost never will. Here we see a split.
Here is one of those fun intricate problems we find with some cases. I'm not sure everyone would agree with the "fun" portion of that, but at least Mr. Patterson was able to use the distinction of offenses in Minnesota and offenses in Illinois to his advantage.
A11-2045 Jeremy Jackson vs. State of Minnesota Petitioner is not entitled to postconviction relief on his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when his petition did not identify any prejudice resulting from the failure of petitioner's counsel to raise specific challenges to the State's evidence and did not identify any federal constitutional claims that counsel unreasonably failed to raise. Affirmed.
In this case ruling we see how custody credit can be denied when there is no probable cause or manipulation by the State. A10-1286 & A11-0548 State of Minnesota vs. Matthew James Clarkin, Defendant convicted of harassing and stalking his victims is not entitled to a jail credit on his harassment/stalking sentence when (1) time spent in custody was for an unrelated parole violation, (2) during the time spent in custody the State did not have both probable cause to arrest and evidence sufficie...
Last week Hennepin County deputies were focused on cracking down on people with warrants. With the help of several local officers from numerous cities in the area, as well as FBI agents, the officers cleared about 175 warrants. Having a warrant is a dangerous life to lead.
This week we looked for a case that related to the recent pages we have been adding to the website lately. We ended up coming across a case where the Court of Appeals of Minnesota had to decide whether the district court was wrong in declaring that a particular juvenile should be prosecuted as an adult. Typically, the court system in our country treats juveniles differently than adults because of the idea that juveniles simply aren’t as mature as adults and because of that, shouldn’t be held to ...
2013 Ascheman & Smith, LLC
. All rights reserved. Sitemap. DISCLAIMER.
Site design by emsster design co.