Indianapolis, Indiana criminal defense lawyer will represent the Defendant charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol. Reported by: Kent Morlan Indianapolis Colts wide receiver Keenan Allen was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, In

Pawhuska, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer Steve Venturi represented the Defendant charged with aggravated driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of 47 O.S. 11-902.D, which provides: D. Any person who is convicted of a violation of driving under the influence whil

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: Count # 1. Count as Filed: CF.63.2-415,-416.C.12a, AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF ILLEGAL DRUGS- FENTANYL, in violation of 63 O.S. 2-415.D.3, Class: B3 Date of Offense: 07/22/2026 Party Name Disposition Information Steele, Oliver Lorn Disposed: CONVICTION, 08/24/2026. Guilty Plea Count as Disposed: AMENDED TO M

Fort Myers, Florida, criminal defense lawyers represented the Defendants charged with brandishing guns during a road rage incident in North Fort Myers. Reported by Kent Morlan Deaven Sandy and Trey Millican were in a pickup truck that was being driven unsafely. The Victim asked at a

Sevierville, Tennessee criminal defense lawyer represents the Defendant charge with official oppression, official misconduct, retaliation for past action, coercion of a state witness, and civil rights intimidation. Reported by Kent Morlan 4th Judicial District Attorney General Jimmy D

San Francisco, Californian qui tam lawyers represented the United States in a False Claims Action. Reported by Kent Morlan Arthur R. Jahr III, Elbert G. Bowers, Susan V. Andrews, Archie R. Jackson, Anthony Smith, Donald K. Wadsworth, and Robert McLean, former employees and contractors

Claremore, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with malicious injury to property in violation of 21 O.S. 1760, which provides: A. Every person who maliciously injures, defaces or destroys any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than such as are specified in Section 1761 et seq. of this title, is guilty of: 1. A misdemeanor, if the damag

Tulsa, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: Count # 1. Count as Filed: CF.47.11-902.C.2, DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL -2ND OFFENSE, in violation of 47 O.S. 11-902.C2, Class: C2 Date of Offense: 06/19/2026 Party Name Disposition Information Pasillas Esparza, Alan U Disposed: DEFERRED, 08/20/2026. Guilty Plea Count as Disposed: DRIVING UNDER

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer Michael French represented the Defendant charged with attempting to perform an act of violence in violaiton of 21 O.S. 1378.A, assault and battery in violaiton of 21 O.S. 1378.B.

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: Count # 1. Count as Filed: CF.21.1040.12a.A, AGGRAVATED POSSESSION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL, in violation of 21 O.S. 1040.12a.A, Class: A2 Date of Offense: 08/28/2025 Party Name Disposition Information Hernandez, Juan Alfredo Disposed: CONVICTION, 08/20/2026. Guilty Plea Count as Disposed: AGGRAVATED P

Nashville, Tennessee, personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a dental malpractice claim. Reported by: Kent Morlan The plaintiff brought suit against his dentist, asserting that the dentist was negligent in failing to diagnose and treat a cavity which the plaintiff conten

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer Michael French represented the Defendant charged with: AGGRAVATED DUI ALCOHOL AND / OR ALCOHOL, in violation of 47 O.S. 11-902.D, which provides: D. Any person who is convicted of a violation of driving under the influence while also committing one of more of the follo

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with larceny of merchandise from a retailer in violation of 21 O.S. 1731, which provides: A. Larceny of merchandise held for sale in retail or wholesale establishments shall be punishable as follows: 1. For the first or second conviction, in the event the value of the goods, edible meat, or other corporeal property wh

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: POSSESSION OF FIREARM AFTER JUVENILE ADJUDICATION, in violation of 21 O.S. 1283.D, which provides: D. It shall be unlawful for any person previously adjudicated as a delinquent child or a youthful offender for the commission of an offense, which would have constituted a felony offense if committed by an adult, to h

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: DOMESTIC ASSAULT OR ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON, in violation of 21 O.S. 644.D.1 D. Any person who, with intent to do bodily harm and without justifiable or excusable cause, commits any assault and battery upon an intimate partner or a family or household member as defined by Section 60.1 of Titl

Tulsa, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: PHYSICAL CONTROL OF VEHICLE WHILE INTOXICATED - SECOND OFFENSE, in violation of 47 O.S. 11-902.C2 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED DRUG, in violation of 63 O.S. 2-402(A)(1) RESISTING AN OFFICER, in violation of 21 O.S. 268 47 O.S. 11-902.C.2 provides: 2. Any person who, having been convicted of or havin

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: Enabling child sexual abuse in violation of 21 U.S. 843.5 (G), which provides: G. Any parent or other person who shall willfully or maliciously engage in enabling child sexual abuse shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a Class A3 felony offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Departme

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with domestic assault and battery. Reported by: Kent Morlan In Oklahoma, the BIP program stands for the Batterers Intervention Program, a structured, 52-week educational initiative regulated and certified by the

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: Count # 1. Count as Filed: CF.57.583, FAILURE TO REGISTER AS SEX OFFENDER, FELONY, in violation of 57 O.S. 583, Class: B5

Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: Count # 1. Count as Filed: CF.21.644.D.1, DOMESTIC ASSAULT OR ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON, in violation of 21 O.S. 644.D.1, Class: B3 Count # 2. Count as Filed: CF.21.644.D.1, DOMESTIC ASSAULT OR ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON, in violation of 21 O.S. 644.D.1, Class: B3 Count #

¶1 Petitioner, Granville Lee Humphrey, was charged by Information with Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance, Case No. CRF-79-2159, and Carrying a Firearm, After Former Conviction of a Felony, Case No. CRF-79-2273. He posted a bond in the sum of $3,000.00 (Three Thousand Dollars) and $5,000.00 (Five Thousand Dollars) respectively. Preliminary hearing in each case was set for July 10, 1979,

Tampa, Florida, personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiffs on prisoner civil rights violation theories under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Reported by Kent Morlan Plaintiffs Ethel Anderson, Wanda Meadows, Jacqueline Luongo, Jennifer Johnson, and Virginia Crowley, former and current inmates

Sapulpa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer Ben Waters represents the Defendant charged with child abuse. Reported by Kent Morlan 21 O.S. § 843.5 (OSCN 2026), Abuse of Elderly or Disabled Persons or Children A. Any person who shall willfully or maliciously engage in child abuse, as

Stilwell, Oklahoma, civil litigation lawyer represented the Plaintiff appealing the receipt of a revocation of driving privileges from Service Oklahoma. The action was brought pursuant to 47 O.S. 6-211 and 754. Plaintiff claimed that the revocation and/or disqualification is done without legal authority and without proper notice to the Plaintiff. Further, it is an arbitrary, frivolous, and

Stilwell, Oklahoma, civil litigation lawyer represented the Plaintiff claiming that Service Oklahoma does not have the authority to revoke Plaintiff's driving privileges because the requirement to install a mandatory ignition interlock program called an IDAP is so punitive in nature that it violates the Double Jeopardy progection of both the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions. 47 O.S. §