Our Attorneys Help Make the Law

This appeal came as a result of the district court’s dismissal of the client’s charge for felony discharge of a firearm after a self-defense justification hearing. The first of its kind, the State appealed this dismissal but the State’s arguments were rejected due to the efforts of our appellate attorneys.

The client was convicted of sexual offenses against a child. On appeal, Ms. Taliaferro and Ms. Wilson successfully argued that the client received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel failed to ensure the jury rendered a unanimous verdict on two of the charges. These convictions were reversed.

The client was convicted of a misdemeanor and felony sexual offense. Ms. Taliaferro successfully argued on appeal that the trial court made a mistake in limiting defense counsel’s ability to cross-examine the accuser about her sexual history directly related to the arguments posed by the State. These convictions were overturned.

Stemming from a successful defense of Mr. Truman at trial whereby he was acquitted of allegations of murdering his wife, the client filed a lawsuit against the prosecution for fabricating evidence. In this section 1983 action against the prosecutor and police department, the district court dismissed the case against the prosecutor and granted summary judgment to the police department. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claim against the prosecutor.

In this case, Attorney Ann Taliaferro co-counseled with attorney Dain Smoland, to argue the unconstitutionality of the process in the way a person who enters a plea in the criminal courts in Utah are not afforded their right, as every other litigant in the Utah courts, to “appeal”. Though the Utah Supreme Court ultimately did not rule on this issue in Brown, finding it was without jurisdiction, the Court recognized there were weighty constitutional issues at stake, and are considering the same issue in another case. That case is pending decision.

The client was convicted of transferring a stolen vehicle. On appeal, Ms. Visser successfully argued that the trial court mistakenly allowed the client’s trial counsel to remain on the case even though he was a critical witness to the facts. The State conceded the error and the client’s conviction was vacated.

This case became the seminal and most often cited case in Utah law involving what "prior bad acts" evidence of a defendant may be used in a criminal trial.

The State sought to use Utah's Subpoena Powers Act to coerce testimony and cooperation from potential witnesses to a murder committed in their home. This case first defined the limitations of the Subpoena Powers Act and limited the State's power to use the act.

The defendant was charged with murder and attempted murder and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. This case became the seminal Utah case challenging the ultimate elimination of a true insanity defense in Utah.

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The case was appealed and the appellate court reversed. Of importance, the Tuttle cases made state law regarding the use and unreliability of hypnotically enhanced testimony at trial. State v. Stettina 868 P.2d 108 (Utah App. 1994) The defendant was convicted of kidnapping and forcible sexual abuse. This case importantly delineated the Utah rule that consecutive sentences may not be aggregated to exceed 30 years and the exceptions to it. State v. Vigil 842 P.2d 843 (Utah 1992) The defendant was charged with various counts of murder and attempted murder. This case ultimately redefined what is required under Utah law to convict a person for "attempted" murder. As the Supreme Court reversed the conviction, it found there could be no crime of attempted "depraved indifference" murder.

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder following a jury trial. The case was appealed and reversed, resulting in a new trial. On retrial, the defendant was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. The case was appealed again, and state law was made regarding the use and unreliability of post-hypnotic testimony at trial. Ultimately, the Utah Supreme Court agreed that hypnotically enhanced testimony is inherently unreliable and inadmissible as evidence and that the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony required reversal.