Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Stephen Wiley 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
stephen-wiley
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Stephen Wiley

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / May 27, 2025

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Stephen Wiley, Appellant.

Appellant

Stephen Wiley appealed his convictions for first-degree assault, armed criminal action, and third-degree domestic assault. He challenged the trial court's denial of his speedy trial motion and its admission of evidence regarding a domestic assault response team and an order of protection. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no speedy trial violation and no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings, despite an abuse of discretion in admitting the order of protection evidence without proof of notice.