Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

BRIAN SHAWN JONES Missouri Cases

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
brian-shawn-jones
Cases Shown
1
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Legal Help From The Archive

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.

Cases Involving BRIAN SHAWN JONES

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Aug 20, 2018

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, vs. BRIAN SHAWN JONES, Appellant.

Appellant

Brian Shawn Jones appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence to disprove his self-defense claim. Jones contended that the evidence clearly established he acted in self-defense. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Jones did not act in self-defense, as the jury was entitled to disbelieve his testimony and draw inferences from his conduct before, during, and after the shooting.