Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jahuan D. Whirley 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
jahuan-d-whirley
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Jahuan D. Whirley

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

State of Missouri vs. Jahuan D. Whirley

Respondent

Jahuan D. Whirley appealed his convictions for murder, assault, armed criminal action, attempted robbery, and unlawful use of a weapon. He argued the trial court erred in excluding evidence of an alternative perpetrator and in denying his motion to dismiss based on ineffective assistance of counsel at his juvenile certification hearing. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the alternative perpetrator evidence, which established a clear link between another person and key evidence of the crime. The court declined to address other points on appeal, and denied the ineffective assistance claim due to an insufficient record.