Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Kenneth Daub 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
kenneth-daub
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Kenneth Daub

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Date unavailable

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kenneth Daub, Appellant.

Appellant

Kenneth P. Daub appealed his conviction for first-degree statutory sodomy, arguing the trial court erred by excluding testimony from two witnesses regarding the victim's character for truthfulness. Daub contended this exclusion violated his due process rights and right to present a complete defense. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the proffered testimony was inadmissible character evidence, as the witnesses were not qualified to testify about the victim's general reputation for truthfulness and their testimony did not demonstrate the victim lied.