Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Aggressive Representation | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
Are you searching for 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 Cale has nearly two decades of experience. Plus, he focuses his practice on criminal defense. With your initial consultation, attorney Cale will develop a free defense strategy plan document for you.
A jury convicted the defendant of chopper not for charges arising from pictures he took the young girls shared on the Internet. He was sentenced to leave he prison term. The defendant contended that the lower court committed various errors at trial and sentencing. First, the defendant Ray several evidentiary objections. He argues that the prosecution listed hearsay testimony when asked a witness about the contents of an and call the Tory report written by an expert did not testify at trial. The appellate court said that even if it was here to admit it, it was not helpful to the jury.
Secondly, the defendant argued that the jury should instructed that they had to agreed units we on which specific images form the basis for conviction. In his view, all the jurors had to create at least one specific image file and federal law. However, the appellate court said that this makes stated the case law. Been of one record is only required for elements of a crime, not for me to satisfying a given element. Different images satisfying the statutory criteria are merely different means. If you’re seeking the best sex crimes criminal defense attorney Tulsa has, then call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800.
Third, the defendant argued that a supervised release conditional prohibit him from contacting his in his daughter. He said this was reasonably related to the offense of the conviction it merely an affair with his right to familiar Association. However, he waived these arguments did not make sentencing by filling argue for plain error. Finally, the defendant argued that the over all effect to the errors mandates reversal. Here’s a summary the case.
A police investigator in another country operated as an undercover online persona that purports to training child pornography in order to help catch predators. When you begin an email exchange with the detective during which this person said several images of young girls later identified as defense daughters. In most the pictures, the girls were close, but when the images show the genitals of the end girl. This person also said the detective a link to three explicit videos of young girls who are not defense daughters. In these emails, the person describes himself as a 38-year-old from Kansas. He also said he was a single father of other children. When the detective asked him for family photo, the persons in the photo of the defendant standing with his three daughters.
If you’ve been charged with a sex crime, you need the best, aggressive criminal defense attorney Tulsa has in the surrounding area. Call will defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. Attorney Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense. He gets high reviews from his clients and he is well worth the money.
The detective look at the data embedded in the digital images. The showed when they were taken and the device used to take them. The data showed explicit images were taken with an iPhone shortly before the persons of the emails. This fact indicated to the detective that the person was not merely sitting images he found on the Internet, but taking the images himself. Consequently, he referred exchange to the U. S. Department of Homeland Security.
Investigators find the IP address used to send some images in determined that they were associated with the defendants home address. Defense pay age, family situation, and location match the description given by the pseudonym. This gives executed a search warrant at the defendant’s house. His three dollars were present in the investigating agent recognized the girls from the images sent to the detective. Investigators sees the defendant’s phone inference from his home security system. The first confirmed that the defendant was using his phone when emails were sent. The defendant was with his daughters with the pictures were taken. Additionally, the daughters were wearing the same quotient of the pictures of the dates the pictures were taken.
Criminal defense attorney Tulsa Stephen Cale is an aggressive lawyer. He will fight to get charges dismissed against his client. He has the right kind of experience because he focuses his practice on criminal defense. If you are looking for an attorney who will fight for you, you should call him at 918-277-4800. Also, take a look at the testimonials people of given on his website at Calelawoffice.com.
At trial, the prosecution presented expert testimony of an agent who specializes in friends examinations electronic evidence. The testified that the defendant’s that contain explicit images of young girls, evidenced of the email address, and two videos of defense in this daughter naked with the defendant’s voice the background. The agent also fell one the images emailed to the detective on the iPhone. On defense computer, the agent pound further evidence of the websites for which the detective persona was contacted.
The defendant testified at trial. Even if they had taken photos and videos of his in his daughter. However, he said that the door report be molested by her mother’s boyfriend and he had taken the photos and videos as evidence of molestation. The sheriff report showed that the defendant had reported this alleged molestation to the share for your before the email exchange with the detective. The defendant denied any knowledge of an email account works was images of his phone other than one solution his daughter. The defendant operated his own business from home and suggested a former employee with access to his phone could have downloaded the images and emailed them to the detective. The defendant also presented evidence from is a computer expert. This expert testimony found only in isolated reference to the email and file created by phone data. He testified he did not find any evidence in prosecution materials he reviewed that the emails have been sent from the defendant’s phone.