Free Newsletter
Criminal Law : Motion For Release – DNA Testing
Stephanie Maniscalco//December 4, 2014
Where a defendant brought a motion for release arguing that DNA testing proved a hair comparison match was false, the lack of a DNA hair match did not demonstrate the defendant’s innocence by a preponderance of the evidence and eye witness identification and testimony from a victim were the basis for the defendant’s convictions, so the motion court did not err in denying the motion for release.
Judgment is affirmed.
Lincoln v. State (MLW No. 67192/Case No. ED100987 – 2 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District) (Laura O’Sullivan for appellant) (Edmund Postawko for respondent).
Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)
Latest Opinion Digests
- Criminal Law: Child Abuse-Sufficiency Of Evidence-Closing Argument
- Civil Rights: Religious Freedom-RLUIPA-Res Judicata
- Civil Practice: Res Judicata-Stop Work Order
- Immigration: Drug Conviction-Removability-Overbreadth of State Offense
- Civil Practice: Asset Forfeiture-Sanctions
- Civil Rights: Due Process-Failure to State Claim
- Probate : Revocable Trust – Amendment – Reformation
- Employer – Employee : Unpaid Commissions – At-Will Status
- Criminal Law : Post-Conviction Relief – Effectiveness Of Counsel – Conflict Of Interest
- Appellate Practice : Jurisdiction – Final Judgment
- Domestic Relations : Parenting Plan – Child Support
- Criminal Law : Post-Conviction Relief – Guilty Plea – Sentence Advice
Top stories
- Missouri Lawyers Media’s legal coverage commended
- Cole County prosecutor loses third Sunshine Law appeal
- Supreme Court weighs lagging symptoms in work comp case
- New accommodation rights for pregnant workers offer broad protections
- Clark named as next Eastern District chief judge
- Russell reflects on change as women take charge of Missouri’s legal system
- NCAA scores positive gender equity review from St. Louis firm
- Big improvements for Missouri bar takers | List of bar passers
