Perrin Law Office

08/22/2026

07/19/2026

https://profiles.superlawyers.com/minnesota/st-paul/lawyer/shirlene-r-perrin/c31ded17-f8ed-4c0c-9fb8-ec502c1992a5.html

Shirlene Perrin is one of the top rated Family Law attorneys in Saint Paul, MN. She has met the stringent Super Lawyers selection criteria.

06/19/2026

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a Texas man who argued it was unconstitutional to ban certain drug users from owning fi****ms: http://www.kare11.com/article/news/nation-world/second-amendment-gun-possession-drug-use-supreme-court/507-2290067e-cc19-46bd-8c03-5822836c798f?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KARE_11

(Photo: The Associated Press)

06/18/2026

Love this mural. Across the street from the Ramsey County Courthouse.

06/12/2026

Perrin Law Office was granted permission to file an appeal before our client has a trial in his criminal case. This is a special kind of appeal called an interlocutory appeal. They are rarely granted. Our request was based on a 2024 US Supreme Court Case, Smith vs Arizona. In this case the Court considered the Confrontation Clause of the US Constitution and the defendant's rights to confront their accusers. The Court considered whether a lab analyst that did not originally perform the testing of the sample related to the case could testify after reviewing the materials of the original analyst. The Court in Smith v Arizona said that in some circumstances they could not because they would be violating the Confrontation Clause and thus violating the defendant's Constitutional Right to Confront their accuser.

We believe this decision will mean change for the law in Wisconsin, which is the jurisdiction of this case. In our case when the prosecution wanted to use a substitute analyst because the original analyst retired, we objected. The court ruled that substitute analyst could testify without violating our client's rights, so we sought permission to appeal. We felt that it was important to appeal before trial because of a strong opinion that our interpretation of the law is correct and we would prevail, because the issue is one that will affect many others and because our client -if found guilty- would face a mandatory jail sentence with a mandatory immediate report to jail order following trial. It often takes months or years to appeal a matter after trial so that if we waited until then he would have served a sentence based on a trial with a Constitutional Violation.

We have yet to see if the Court will ultimately agree with our interpretation of the trial court's ruling however we are very happy that the appellate court agreed with us that our client deserved an opinion on this matter before going to trial on his case.