What would composer Wolfgang Mozart do with a closing argument? University of Tennessee College Law Student Melissa Joy Baxter, a classically trained pianist, explains how principles of artistic performance can be applied to craft every aspect of a closing argument. “The Mozartian framework is emotionally appealing, sterling in clarity, consistent in structure, and brilliantly simple — everything a closing argument should be,” she writes. 

The Leaf-Chronicle reports 14,223 driver’s licenses were revoked this week in Montgomery County due to unpaid litigation taxes, court costs or fines assessed by the Montgomery County General Sessions Court. While many motorists said they were caught off guard by the notices they received this week, court staff have been working since September to go through all General Sessions records to make sure they were accurate. The fines and fees date back to 2012. 

Assistant public defenders in Williamson County have stopped accepting some new cases due to case overload, The Tennessean reports. "We’re not refusing all cases, we're just telling the judge each day we’re in court, 'as of right now I cannot accept this case,'" said 21st District Public Defender Vanessa Bryan. But District Attorney Kim Helper is challenging the case refusals, and said she plans to file a formal objection next week that will ask the public defender to provide more evidence of the overwhelming caseloads. Indigent cases have been handed over to private attorneys, which Helper said is costing taxpayers. 

The Petitioner, Dalton B. Lister, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court?s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder, attempt to commit aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and his effective life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the State destroyed evidence, withheld exculpatory evidence, and concealed the existence of an agreement with a codefendant, and that the cumulative effect of the misconduct deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial.

On remand from a prior appeal, the parties engaged in discovery and the defendants then moved for summary judgment on the two remaining issues – claims of false light invasion of privacy against a television station and its employees. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the standard of actual malice was not met and awarding discretionary costs against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

Judgment debtor appeals the entry of a charging order which subjected the debtor’s interest in a limited liability company to satisfaction of the judgment debt. Finding that the charging order is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal, we dismiss the appeal and remand the case for further proceedings.

The defendant, Sara Anne Neumann, was charged with one count of driving under the influence (“DUI”). The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence from the traffic stop, arguing that the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion that she was committing a traffic violation to justify the stop. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress. The State now appeals, arguing that the officer’s observation of the defendant and his radar gun constituted reasonable suspicion.

The petitioner, William T. Minton, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Pro se petitioner, Carl Jones, Jr., appeals the Bledsoe County Circuit Court?s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal, the petitioner argues that his judgment of conviction is void because the trial court failed to award him jail credit for time served on community corrections. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand this matter for entry of an amended judgment awarding the petitioner 259 days of jail credit.

In this second interlocutory appeal, the employer appeals an order of the trial court denying its motion for summary judgment. In the first interlocutory appeal, we affirmed an order awarding medical benefits. Following the employee's examination by a physician selected from a panel, the physician opined that the employee had a pre- existing condition that was aggravated by the employee's work accident, but the physician did not opine whether the aggravation arose primarily from the work accident.