Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Aggressive Trial Lawyer | Cale Law Office

Are you looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer? Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly 20 years of experience. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. Attorney Cale will develop a free defense strategy plan document during your initial consultation.

The defendant claimed that he was denied his rights under the federal speedy trial act. Here’s a summary what happened. He a companion were driving two cars on an interstate. An Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper stopped led to the discovery of firearms and drugs in the companions vehicle. The two drivers were arrested and place in the county jail. A few days later the state filed charges with violations of Oklahoma law. The state preliminary hearing was postponed or continued multiple times until finally, nine months after the traffic stop, the two men were indicted in federal court.

These people were probably looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has. In that case, it would’ve called the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. The speedy trial act an arrestee must be charged by indictment or information within 30 days of arrest. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment against him for failing to comply with the requirement. He argued that this arrest occurred at the time of the traffic stop. He contended that the states arresting confinement were merely a is to avoid the 30-day requirement and give federal authorities as to time to pressure the drivers to cooperate with the prosecution. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion. It ruled that the defendant had not shown a ruse.

The defendant and his friend were driving on Interstate 44 in separate cars. A woman was riding with the defendant. When the trooper tried to pull over the friend, the defendant’s vehicle struck the patrol car. The prosecution contended that the defendant intentionally hit the patrol car to draw attention away from the friend as she was carrying more than 200 pounds of marijuana and guns. Obviously, they needed a criminal defense attorney Tulsa by calling the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. The trooper arrived.

Special Agent came to the scene to assist with the investigation. On the day of the arrest, authorities interviewed three suspects separately. The defendant signed a Miranda waiver form. Three days later and agent in another trooper interviewed the defendant. Officers told them of the federal charges of the senses they could be facing. Later the state of the, charged the defendant on a counts, including assault battery with a total weapon, illegal possession of firearms, trafficking in illegal drugs, and conspiracy to trafficking in illegal drugs. There were several continuances to get to the preliminary hearing stage.

Stay dismissed the charges after the defendant was indicted in federal court. The trooper testified that he used long potential federal sentences as leverage to encourage the defendant to cooperate with the state investigation. He testified that his investigation was building a state case, not a federal one. As for the delays, the prosecution argued that the defendant agreed to many of them. Prosecutors said there was no actual evidence of collusion between state and federal law enforcement to detain the defendant in preparation for federal prosecution.

The trial court’s denial the motion to dismiss for violations being trial act is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The standard of review encompasses de novo review the district court’s compliance with a legal requirements of the act. The act requires that any information or indictment charged the individual what the commission of the fence shall be filed within 30 days from the date on which the individual was arrested or served with a summons. If the government fails comply with this time limit, the charges the complaint must be dismissed with or without prejudice.

If you’ve been charged with a crime, you need to find the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has. You can do this by contacting attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. Can also find him on the web at

For the purpose of responding to federal charge. Some courts, however, he recognized a ruse exception to the general rule in the persons confinement grounds other than federal criminal charges for the purposes of affording the requirement of the act. Confinement by immigration authorities. Under some cases, the court examined state charges that were pending. Speedy trial and lose all force of federal criminal authorities could arrange with the state for a status states forced to take the defendant until federal authorities are ready to file criminal charges. Therefore, the speedy trial act time periods may be triggered by the state detentions that are merely a is to detain the defendant solely for the purpose of bypassing requirements of the act.

State and federal law enforcement officers commonly cooperate to make investigations more effective and efficient. Cooperative investigations a result state or federal prosecution, depending on many considerations. In this case, less than two months of the continuances were the defendant’s objection. Many the continuances were at the defendant’s request. There was no evidence of intentional stalling for any other purpose.

Warnings about possible substances do not show a decision and been made to pursue federal prosecution. The agent gave a perfectly possible reason for telling the suspects of the federal charges and senses that can be imposed. This common for basket is to try to induce cooperation by making the risks of noncooperation look as severe as possible. The district court granted the reason, stating that the officers were trying to use the potential federal prosecution as leverage to get people to cooperate in the state prosecution. The mere fact that detaining authorities were aware of other potential criminal charges does not trigger the ruse exception. The prosecution also contended that the defendant failed to show that the state arrest was unlawful or in bad faith. It argues these requirements for applying the ruse exception.