This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.
Party ID
brad-lindsey
Cases Shown
2
Top Practice Route
Criminal Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Related Practice Pages
Practical guidance connected to this party profile
These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.
Need help turning court research into a case plan?
If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.
Brad Lindsey appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon, and tampering with physical evidence following a jury trial. Lindsey argued there was insufficient evidence for felony tampering and that the circuit court erred by not issuing a corrective instruction regarding the State's "acquittal-first" arguments for lesser-included offenses. The Western District affirmed, holding that Lindsey waived his sufficiency of evidence claim through judicial admissions and that the State's closing argument, while improper, did not result in manifest injustice.
Brad Lindsey appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Lindsey claimed his counsel was deficient for failing to object to a jury instruction on unlawful use of a weapon that lacked a self-defense paragraph. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decision was a reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that counsel's strategy to concede guilt on lesser charges to gain credibility for a self-defense claim on the murder charge was objectively reasonable and not deficient performance.