Skip to the main content.
BLOGS & LEGAL INSIGHTS:
BUSINESS LAW
Hero-Split-Right
CONSUMER LAW

Hero-Split-Left

 

WEBINARS

green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb

 

VIDEO LIBRARY

green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

2 min read

Conviction Reversed in Securities Fraud Case Due to Trial Court Errors

a photo of a person sitting at a desk. On the desk there is a gavel and the scales of justice.

In this securities fraud case, Kelly James Schnorenberg appealed his conviction on the grounds of trial court errors. After a thorough review, the Court of Appeals agreed with Schnorenberg on several key points, ultimately leading to the reversal of his conviction. This blog post examines the case, the errors identified by the Court of Appeals, and the implications of their decision.

Case Background

Kelly James Schnorenberg faced multiple counts of securities fraud, including material misstatements and omissions, as well as a charge for a fraudulent course of business. However, Schnorenberg's conviction was called into question when he appealed, citing several errors made by the trial court.

Trial Court Errors

The Court of Appeals delved into the intricacies of Schnorenberg's case and identified three key areas where the trial court erred. Firstly, Schnorenberg's testimony regarding the advice he received from his lawyer was unjustly excluded. This exclusion, as highlighted by the Court of Appeals, was deemed to be an unwarranted misstep on the part of the trial court. The importance of allowing Schnorenberg to present his side of the story and share the guidance he received from his legal counsel should not have been disregarded.

In addition to this, the trial court failed in its duty to instruct the jury on the significance of Schnorenberg's good faith reliance on the advice he received from his lawyer. It is essential for the jury to understand the context in which Schnorenberg's actions were taken and the extent to which he relied on professional guidance. The Court of Appeals sided with Schnorenberg, acknowledging that this omission in the instructions to the jury constituted a clear error on the part of the trial court.

Lastly, an error that the trial court committed was its failure to toll the statute of limitations for seven counts that occurred before the effective date of a statutory amendment. The Court of Appeals agreed with Schnorenberg's perspective, recognizing that this failure to toll the statute of limitations was indeed an error. This failure had significant implications for Schnorenberg's case, as it affected the timeline within which allegations of wrongdoing could be pursued.

The Court's Ruling

Following a thorough examination of the trial court errors, the Court of Appeals took decisive action. They vacated seven of Schnorenberg's convictions and reversed the judgment on the remaining convictions. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings, allowing for a fresh legal review based on the identified errors.

Implications and Conclusion

The Kelly James Schnorenberg securities fraud case highlights the significance of trial court errors and their potential impact on an appellant's conviction. The Court of Appeals' decision to reverse Schnorenberg's conviction based on the identified errors underscores the importance of a fair and properly conducted trial.

This case also sheds light on the role of legal representation and the relevance of advice provided by defense attorneys. The Court of Appeals supported Schnorenberg's arguments regarding the exclusion of his lawyer's advice and the importance of good faith reliance in determining his mental state.

Ultimately, the appeal's success emphasizes the critical nature of ensuring that trials are conducted in adherence to the law, with proper consideration given to all relevant evidence and instructions to the jury.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for guidance on your specific legal situation.

pressure cooker on a kitchen counter next to a cutting board covered in fruits and vegetables and various kitchenwares

Burn Victim Sues Sunbeam & Target Following Crock-Pot Incident

Georgina Perez purchased a Crock-Pot pressure cooker from Target in 2018. In June 2019, she was hospitalized for severe burns after the lid came off...

Read More
car crash with police on scene

Amended Healthcare Lien Ruled Inadmissible in Personal Injury Suit

Background On September 26, 2019, Cory Wolven and Jeanmadi del Rosario Velez were involved in a car accident in Wheat Ridge, Colorado after Velez's...

Read More
exposed wiring protruding from circular holes in a plaster wall

Colorado Court Upholds Damage Cap in Sears Personal Injury Suit

In the case of Gebert v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Jacqueline Gebert filed a personal injury suit against Sears after being electrocuted by her stove,...

Read More