Best Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | A Ray of Hope
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’ve been charged with online solicitation of a minor, you need aggressive representation. You need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Stephen Cale has two decades of experience. Plus, he’s the right kind of attorney for your case because he dedicates his practice to criminal defense.

In one case, the defendant appealed his conviction for criminal solicitation of a minor. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Here’s a summary of the case. In July, the defendant went to a building to register to vote. While searching for the appropriate office, he encountered alone female the hallway. The defendant asked the female held she was. According to the female, she told the defendant she was 14 years old.

However, the defendant contended that the female told him that she was 17 years old or, at least, that it was understood that that’s what she said. Defendant asked girls you like to go to the bathroom with him to engage in oral sex. The teen declined. The defendant is the teen if she was sure, twitch she replied in the affirmative. Solicitation a minor doesn’t always have to be online. It can be done in person as well. This type of charge carries a severe penalty. That’s why you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer to defend you.

An officer was assigned to investigate this incident. The officer obtains a phone after the defendant showed it to the girl. She positively identified the defendant as the person who had solicited her. The officer then located the defendant discussed the incident with him in the defendant’s vehicle. Initially, the defendant denied solicitation of a minor. He said he had no knowledge of the incident but admitted they had been in the building and encountered the girl.

The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has will create reasonable doubt with the jury. One of the ways to do this is by undermining the credibility of the witness. This can be done by cross-examining the state’s witnesses. If there is any reasonable doubt as to any element of the crime charged, the jury must find the defendant not guilty. The goal of attorney Stephen Cale is to get his clients the best possible result. Contact him today at 918-277-4800.

The defendant told the officer they thought that the female was 17 years old. Later, the defendant gave a written statement to the officer. In his statement, the states that he encountered the girl in the building, asked her how to was, but she was 17 and asked the girl she one have oral sex. Prosecutors charged the defendant with solicitation of a minor. He waived to trial by jury in the case was submitted to Fort. After the close of evidence, buffet prosecution and the defendant close without presenting a closing argument. The trial court found the defendant guilty.

The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has will have excellent communication skills. A criminal attorney must have excellent trial skills. Attorney Stephen Cale has handled numerous jury trials. These range from misdemeanors to felonies. His felony cases include murder and sex-related crimes. Rapport with a jury can make or break a case.

Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | A Ray of Hope

On appeal, the defendant challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. He contends that the minor’s testimony was not corroborated is required by statute. With the second issue, the defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed arguing closing argument. The only evidence that the girl was under 17 came from the girl herself. The defendant contended that this evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for solicitation of a minor.

The fundamental role of criminal law that one cannot be convicted of a crime unless this proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the alleged offense. When conducting a legal sufficiency review, the appeals court will determine whether any right rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime be unoriginal doubt. In a jury trial, the jury’s the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. In a bench trial, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses in the weight to be given to the testimony.

The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has will attack the prosecution’s evidence. In fact, even before a child started, and aggressive criminal attorney will fight to get evidence thrown out. Attorney Stephen Cale of the Cale law office does this by filing pretrial motions. Typically, this is done by filing a motion to suppress evidence. If the judge grants the motion, the case is usually dismissed. Needless to say, this is a huge benefit for the client. After all, his reputation, liberty, and future are at stake.

The defendant contended that there was find that the evidence to back up the girls testimony that she told the defendant that she was 14 years old. He contended that he did not commit solicitation of a minor to engage in oral sex. The appeals court said that the plain language of the requirement contained in the solicitation statute requires of the minor test may only be strongly corroborated. The speed must be done as to the solicitation itself in the accused intent that the minor act in the solicitation.

In the present case, and strongly corroborated the solicitation itself. Defendant provide a written statement to police. That statement was admitted in evidence at trial. Stated that he encountered the girl with ability and asked her if she one go have oral sex. The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has will tell you to never talk to police. Talking to the police can never help you. Instead, talking to police will only hurt you. Don’t be afraid to tell the police that you want a lawyer.

Additionally, during cross-examination, prosecutors asked the defendant if he had asked the girl to have oral sex with him. He responded that he did. Therefore this evidence is sufficient corroborate the solicitation itself. Additionally, during cross-examination, the prosecution asked the defendant if the girl had said yes to the solicitation. That was followed up with whether not he was going during the bathroom of a public building. The defendant responded that he was. This amounted to solicitation of a minor.