Ben Brennan Horan

Mr. B. Brennan Horan failed to timely address a pretrial Motion concerning admissibility of evidence. Thus, it was not until the criminal trial was set to begin that the Motion received any hearing. The judge was critical of Horan because it had to be hurriedly addressed before trial could begin. ...Then the matter was not resolved in the limited time available and was left until trial before being ruled upon. During the trial Horan could not prevent the Motion from being summarily ruled against, and the very damaging evidence was allowed. Whether its admissibility was appropriate or not, the fact there was insufficient time for the Motion to receive a full and complete hearing in Chamber, before the trial, was because of Horans' failure to address it in a timely manner. Next, as the trial began, Horan had to ask his client for another copy of the pertinent information his client previously provided, and which he had failed to bring to court. Again he was not properly prepared for the trial. Also, Horan returned late from the lunch recess and was admonished by the judge for delaying the preceedings. Horan handled the Appeal of the case. His client asked to review the Appeal before it was submitted to the court, but Horan did not allow this. And in its unfavorable written ruling, the appellate court was critical of Horan for citing no case law in support of the Appeal. At the Sentencing hearing Horan was totally unprepared. He did not mention to his client to provide any character witnesses on his behalf. He was not prepared to challenge a damaging and specious letter he was aware of, and that his client told him would likely be used at that hearing. It seems now, as it did then, that Horan was no more informed than his client about what to expect at that Sentencing hearing. These were my experiences with Horan, and my core criticisms of his professional service.