Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Attacking False Confessions | Cale Law Office
This content was written for 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. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. He has nearly 20 years of experience in focuses his practice on criminal defense. That means he has the right kind of experience for your case. Attorney Cale has handled a wide variety of criminal cases, including murder.
The defendant was convicted of sexual contact with the child. On appeal, he argued that the district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony of an expert witness on false confessions. He said this expert witness provide support for his claim that his confession to law enforcement was untrue. Here’s a summary the case. After letter with his girlfriend for seven years, the defendant moved to Tulsa in order to get work attorney. Shortly after he left, his girlfriend’s niece into the presentation with her six grade class in sexual abuse. As per the presentation, students received a questionnaire related to sexual abuse. The niece’s responses indicated that should been sexually abuse. Later question about the responses, the girl implicated the defendant is the perpetrator. This was reported to law enforcement.
Agents traveled to the defendant’s hometown an interview him for about an hour and a half in a patient examination room. The agents informed the defendant that they were there only to investigate allegations it sexually abuse the girls and that he was not under arrest. The defendant agreed to speak to the agents. The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer will tell you to never talk to police. That’s why attorney Stephen Cale says. Talking to the police will not help you. It will only hurt you. The defendant initially denied touching either of the girls the probably confessed to the allegations later in the interview. At the conclusion of the meeting, he provided the agents with a confession.
Defendant disavowed his confession at trial. He claimant was prompted by course of tactics by the FBI. He testified that the ages repeatedly insisted he was lying denied the charges and would be arrested and would not take no for an answer. He also reported that one of the agents engaged in aggressive, leading questioning. At one point, the agents render removed him from his workplace saying counsel as he cooperated. Indicated that they just because if he cannot leave the room unless he cooperated and pass. When the agents testify that they never threatened the defendant and did not make any promises stand.
The agent claimed that the only guidance he provide the defendant in drafting the confession consists of basic traction such as part of their what happened and if you want you can tell them that you want to apologize. Prior to trial, the defendant notified the prosecution that he planned to call a professor of psychology as an expert witness on Paul’s confessions. The defendant occurred as an expert in the field of social psychology in the subjects of confession, interrogation techniques, and the ability those techniques to cause people to confess. The prosecution requested the hearing to determine whether she was qualified to testify the under as an expert under the Federal rules.
The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer, such as Stephen Cale, altering call an expert in defending a client. Sometimes this is necessary who cases where there is but alleged confession. The defendant offered the expert’s testimony on two subjects. The first was whether false confessions occur. The second was why people confess falsely. The defendant has never been examined by the expert it would offer an opinion as to whether he can best falsely. The expert did not appear at the hearing. Instead, the court relied on documentary evidence related to the expert. Accepted this a proper a transcript of her testimony in similar cases before a different judge on the same court. Included in the proper was a PowerPoint presentation the expert used in other cases.
After in the transcript of the power port presentation, the district court ruled that the expert’s testimony was inadmissible. It concluded that did not meet the standards for relevance or reliability required by law part. The case proceeds to trial, but ended in a mistrial the jury tell the region unanimous verdict. The second trial resulted in the defense conviction. The defendant argued that the District Court mistakenly excluded the expert’s testimony on false confession. He argued that the expert one of only testified to the frequency of Paul’s confessions and interrogation techniques known to cause them. You are not of offer an opinion as to whether the defendant confessed falsely. He contended that the limited purpose of his testimony was to overcome the perception that the same people either do not confess falsely, or do so rarely. He suggested that by presenting general testimony from the expert regarding the phenomenon of false confessions his exclamation for white confessed falsely would be placed in a broader, more believable context.
The defendant argued that the district court failed to employ the correct legal standard. The standard limits the court’s review to a question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit the expert testimony. The appellate court will a person concludes that the district court decision was arbitrary, capricious, was so cool or manifestly unreasonable. Also may reverse the appellate court is convinced that the district court made it clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice and circumstances. The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by the rules of evidence. When faced with the proper of expert scientific testimony, the trial judge must determine at the outset whether the expert is proposing to testify to the following. One is the testimony regarding scientific knowledge? Secondly, all that testimony assist the trier of fact to understand or determine effectiveness you?
In performing this gatekeeper role, the judge must assess the reasoning a methodology underlying the expert’s opinion. Then the court must determine whether it is scientifically valid and applicable to a particular set of facts. The trial judge conduct a review under Tolbert must seek to ensure that any novel scientific testimony or evidence submitted is not only relevant, but reliable. This pistol applies knowledge testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to test money based on technical and other specialized knowledge. Scientifically reliable evidence of testimony makes me excluded what is not directly relevant to the particular matter does. The trial. In this instance it would not assist the trier of fact.