Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Aggressive Trial Representation | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
Are you looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer? For a free initial consultation, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of experience. Plus, he focuses his practice on criminal defense. Attorney Cale has handled some of the most serious charges. He is highly rated by his clients.
The defendant contended that the district court improperly minute evidence to his expert witness. The trial, the defendant presented the testimony of a computer expert who testified that he did not find the evidence of certain emails that were sent from his phone. On cross-examination, the prosecution has the expert went documents he had reviewed. As part of this line of inquiry, the prosecution asked about a report prepared by a previously retained defense expert. This expert did not testify at trial. After the expert said that he had read the other reports, the prosecution asked him if he would help his memory be showed him a copy of a report. When he said yes, the prosecutor showed him the report, which was marked as a prosecution exhibit.
If you’ve been charged with serious crime, you dearly want to get the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has. So, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale is handled numerous jury trials. He always tries to get charges against his client’s dismissed. He will work hard to get the best possible result for you.
The report, even though solicited by the defense, was substantially more damaging than another report. The prosecution asked the expert whether the report in a keyword search for certain email. The prosecution also asked whether the report locate any hits for certain term. Defendant contends that listing the contents of the report violated rules of evidence and substantially interfered with his due process rights. However, the appeals court disagreed.
Assuming that report was hearsay violated the defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause, the defendant cannot demonstrate that the District Court plainly may mistake by mitigating. To satisfy the third prong of the plain error review, defendant Julie must demonstrate that an error was prejudicial. This means that there is a reasonable probability that had not been for the error, the result of the proceeding would’ve been different. The prosecution exchange for the expert was relatively short. Most of the points came out improperly admitted on hearsay testimony of the prosecution’s expert witness.
The defendant admitted taking the explicit pictures and videos. The pictures were emailed using IP address associated with the defendant’s house. The embedded data show the pictures were taken shortly before they were emailed. This was a year after the defendant claimed his daughter had been molested. The home security system showed the defendant using his phone around the time the emails were sent. The defense phone contained evidence of the email address from which the pictures were sent. Lastly, the defendant’s phone contained other explicit photographs of children.
If you or someone you know been charged with a sex crime, then you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale is an aggressive criminal defense attorney. He will fight hard for you and is well worth the money. His clients give him high reviews and recommend others to him.
Next, the defendant argued that several statements by the prosecution’s witnesses violated the evidence code provides that opinion testimony must be helpful to the trier of fact to be admissible. If the witness is not testified as an expert, testimony the form of opinion is limited to one that is helpful to clearly understand the witness’s testimony or to determine a fact in issue. A witness was qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion. Additionally, that expert may testify at the expert scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.
The defendant contended that to prosecution witnesses improper testified that certain images qualified is chopper not. The defense view, the stamens were in immiscible because they were not able to the jury. For example, at trial, the prosecution asked an agent whether he prepared a report of his findings from searching the defense phone. He answered yes they reported they saw images that would pornographic in nature. Later, the prosecution has the agent whether he found images they believed were child pornography on the iPhone. The agent responded that he did.
David’s rule applies to lay testimony of the detective in the agent. Another rope applies to expert testimony. The helpfulness is similar to both Lane expert testimony. Test was not helpful if it simply tells the jury what resulted should reach without providing any explanation of the criteria to which that opinion is based or by any means by which the jury can exercise independent judgment. This type of testimony is excluded because it appears with the function of the jury deciding the facts. Or commit excluded because in affairs with a function of the judge instructed the jury in the law.
To support his argument the testimony of identifying chopper was not helpful, the defendant points to the Seventh Circuit case was found in immiscible federal agents test my the photos of the defense computer but the federal definition of child pornography. That court found that the agents test me was latest by offering a legal conclusion. Therefore was in immiscible because was not helpful to the jury. However, the witness comments were distinguishable from the comments in the other case. This is because the witnesses did not mention the legal definition. Also they did not tell the jury what to find. Instead, the prosecution may clear its questions to not concerned the legal definition of child pornography.
If you or someone you know has been charged with a serious sex crime, you need a criminal defense attorney Tulsa. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. Attorney Stephen Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense.