Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Fred L. Harris 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
fred-l-harris
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Fred L. Harris

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 23, 2021

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Fred L. Harris, Appellant.

Appellant

Fred Harris, Sr., appealed the motion court's denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing, filed under § 547.035, following his conviction for forcible rape. Harris argued that the DNA testing methods he sought were not reasonably available at trial and that the motion court applied an incorrect test. He also contended the court erred in concluding he strategically chose not to pursue independent DNA testing. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's decision, finding no clear error in its conclusions regarding the availability of testing technology or the strategic decision not to pursue further DNA analysis.