Online Brief Bank

Subscribers to the Criminal Defense Resource Center’s online resources, found at, have access to more than 1,800 appellate pleadings filed by SADO Attorneys in the last five years.  The brief bank is updated regularly and is open to anyone who wants to subscribe to online access.  On our site, briefs are searchable by keyword, results can be organized by relevance or date, and the pleadings can be filtered by court of filing.  Below is a sample of some of the questions presented in briefs added to our brief bank in the last few weeks:

BB 263726:  Due process requires plea withdrawal where defense trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and raise the defense of insanity or involuntary intoxication.

BB 263743:  Defendant must be resentenced because the sentencing court improperly relied on defendant’s lack of remorse in sentencing him to a lengthy term of years.

BB 263914:  The trial court erred by imposing a prison sentence on defendant without revoking probation.

BB 263914:  The trial court erred by imposing economic penalties on defendant after defendant left the courtroom.

BB 263962:  The prosecutor denied defendant-appellant his right to due process and a fair trial when she told the jury, without any evidentiary support in the record, that a key defense witness risked only probation for admitting that he, not defendant, possessed the gun in question.

BB 263962:  The judge erred where the jury declared it was hung and the judge responded with an instruction that not only was materially different from the required deadlocked-jury instruction, but was also coercive.

BB 263962:  Defendant must be resentenced before a different judge when ov-19 was misscored affecting defendant’s guidelines range and when judicial reassignment is appropriate under the law.

BB 264133:  The trial court denied defendant his constitutional rights to self-representation when it ignored his request to represent himself and foreclosed further discussion of the issue.

BB 264133:  The trial court improperly denied defendant’s repeated requests for substitute counsel even though he and his appointed counsel had a major strategy disagreement, in that counsel refused to even obtain and review evidence defendant wanted to present at trial, and there had been a resulting breakdown in their attorney-client relationship.

BB 264182:  Due process requires a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that the complainant admitted she lied to the police about appellant having a weapon so that the police would respond to her call.

BB 264312:  The trial court’s ruling that probable cause existed to search defendant must be reversed, as it is based entirely on a search executed in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

BB 264433:  Due process requires plea withdrawal where defendant-appellant pleaded no contest with an agreement for a guideline range sentence, but both defense counsel and the prosecutor misstated the applicable range as 108-180 months, which turned out to be 126-210 months, and the trial court imposed a minimum sentence of 126 months.

BB 264493:  The trial court reversibly erred in declaring co-defendant brown unavailable and admitting his prior testimony over defense counsel’s objections, in violation of the state and federal constitutional rights to confrontation and in violation of state evidentiary rules.

BB 265006:  A conviction violates due process unless supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the offense.  Ms. White’s felony firearm conviction is based on insufficient evidence that she possessed a gun or aided and abetted her brother in doing do.  This conviction must therefore be vacated.

BB 265030:  Defendant’s state and federal due process rights were violated when he was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder, where there was insufficient evidence to conclude that he had formed the specific intent to kill complainant and/or where the offense was mitigated by provocation.

BB 265179:  Defendant is entitled to a new trial because the trial court failed to properly consider a reasonable jury request to view evidence, foreclosing the opportunity to view the evidence in the future.

BB 265335:  Defendant was denied his right to a fair trial and to due process where the trial court erred in admitting the shortened video showing a small portion of the fight. The video was incomplete, not properly authenticated and the brief excerpt admitted was more prejudicial than probative. To the extent counsel failed to object properly, he was ineffective.

BB 265939:  Reversible error occurred where the prosecutor introduced several inadmissible hearsay statements under the guise of impeachment, then argued that they provided substantive proof against defendant.

BB 265578:  Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper expert testimony that the complainant suffered “probable pediatric abuse,” as well as to the expert’s hearsay account of the complainant’s allegations.

BB 265725:  Reversal is required because trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance in failing to interview and call a key defense witness at trial.

BB 265814:  Due process requires resentencing where the court departed above the sentencing guidelines range and the reasons given did not support the degree of departure.

BB 265986:  Defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to inform the court of assistance defendant provided to local law enforcement.

BB 266547:  Due process requires plea withdrawal where defense counsel misled defendant into pleading guilty by informing defendant that the court would sentence him to six months in jail, time served; but the court actually sentenced defendant to 30-180 months in prison.

BB 266624:  Defendant’s right to the effective assistance of trial counsel was completely undermined where his attorney elicited an abundance of highly incriminating evidence from the complainant and her mother, including testimony which directly contradicted that of defendant and utterly eviscerated his defense.

BB 263680:  Offense variable seven was improperly scored where defendant’s actions, while brutal, were not excessively brutal as required to find aggravated physical abuse.

BB 265725:  Reversal is required because trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance in failing to interview and call a key defense witness at trial.

BB 266228:  Defendant was denied due process of law and a fair trial by the prosecutor’s violation of discovery and late disclosure of an inculpatory statement, which denied him the opportunity to make effective choices of trial strategy; it was plain error or counsel was ineffective for not making a request to instruct the jury on the failure of the police to record the alleged statement.

BB 266329:  Defendant was denied his federal and state rights to due process and a fair and impartial trial when the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from Detective Bailey that vouched for the credibility of the state’s star witness, and made improper comments and arguments to the jury.  Defendant’s conviction must be vacated.

BB 266816:  Trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to move to suppress appellant’s statement to the police at the scene made in response to custodial questioning without being informed of Miranda rights.

BB 267004:  The prosecutor denied defendant a fair trial by mischaracterizing the evidence and asking defendant to comment on the complainant’s credibility.

BB 267071:  Defendant was denied his right to present a defense by the trial court’s ruling suppressing expert and lay testimony concerning the likelihood that the complainant would have contracted the disease suffered by defendant and defendant’s girlfriend if the complainant’s testimony were true.

BB 267309:  The trial court erred by refusing to accept defendant’s guilty plea.

BB 267421:  The court violated defendant’s due process rights by refusing to allow defense counsel to use a psychological report describing that the complainant claimed being paralyzed, yet could move her limbs, which cast doubt on the complainant’s ability to accurately perceive her physical condition and recall the alleged digital penetration; and by excluding a psychological report in which the complainant denied any history of sexual abuse, after the complainant did not recall making such a statement.