Brad handles two different kinds of appeals in the criminal area. First, he appeals judgments of conviction on behalf of persons found guilty at trial. Here are some recent cases in which Brad has obtained reversals:

State v. Ancel: Brad obtained reversal of convictions for two counts of first-degree burglary on the ground that the trial court improperly allowed the State to introduce extensive trial testimony that police officers involved in the case (1) knew the defendant “from prior contacts” and (2) had the defendant under surveillance on the night he was alleged to have committed the burglaries.

See http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0806/opa070195-0603.pdf

State v. Miramontes: Brad obtained reversal of convictions for two counts of first-degree controlled substance crime (sale of methamphetamine). The Court reversed because the State failed to disclose to the defense before trial evidence that an eyewitness had identified as the drug dealer a person other than the defendant.

See http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0806/opa070135-0627.pdf

State v. Williams: Brad obtained reversal of a conviction for first-degree arson. The Court reversed because the trial court told the jury that they could convict the defendant if they found that an accomplice had started the fire, but never explained to the jury the legal rules governing liability for crimes of another (accomplice liability).

See http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0901/opa072079-0120.pdf

The second kind of criminal appeal Brad handles is the defense of pretrial State appeals. In these cases, the district court has issued a ruling favorable to the defendant (e.g., a ruling suppressing evidence or dismissing a charge), and the State has filed a pretrial appeal. Brad’s objective in such cases is to sustain the district court’s (favorable) ruling. Here are some recent cases in which Brad has been successful:

State v. Peck: Brad persuaded the appellate court to affirm the district court’s pretrial order dismissing a charge of first-degree controlled substance crime (possession of 25-or-more grams of methamphetamine) on the ground that the weight of methamphetamine-tainted water in the defendant’s bong could not serve as the basis for that weight-based drug charge.

See http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0810/opa080579-1007.pdf

State v. Sundberg: Brad persuaded the appellate court to affirm the district court’s pretrial ruling that the State would not be allowed to present at the defendant’s trial for attempted third-degree burglary and criminal damage to property, evidence that an eyewitness had identified the defendant as the offender. The Court affirmed the district court’s ruling because police had used an unduly suggestive identification procedure that likely caused the witness to mistakenly identify the defendant as the offender.

See http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0712/opa071098-1204.htm

State v. Desjarlais: Brad persuaded the appellate court to affirm the district court’s pretrial ruling that the State would not be allowed to present at the defendant’s trial for first-degree assault, certain evidence allegedly linking the defendant to the offense because the police had obtained that evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

See http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0810/opa080707-1021.pdf

State v. Martin: Brad filed a “friend of the court” brief that helped persuade the Minnesota Supreme Court that the district court improperly set an unusually high bail amount as a means of coercing the defendant—who faced only a minor drug charge—to submit to drug testing during pretrial release. (Had the defendant been able to afford to post bail, the district court could not have ordered drug testing as a condition of pretrial release).

See http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0801/OPA062460-0103.htm