Best Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Dedicated Attention
This content was written for Cale Law Office
Have you been charged with online solicitation of a minor? Then you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has will fight to keep you out of prison. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale is a skilled and highly rated criminal lawyer. His practice is dedicated to criminal defense.
The defendant appealed his conviction for online solicitation of a minor. A jury found him guilty and assessed punishment 10 years in prison. This was probated to 10 years community supervision. The defendant challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. Here’s a summary of the facts of the case.
The offenses allegedly occurred in 2017 when the child was 14 years old. The defendant was 22. The defendant was an instructor for lifeguarding class in a club where the teen worked as a receptionist. The defendant in the teen worked together and began texting each other. According to the teen, the text became sexual when the defendant suggested that the teen take take a picture or take her shirt off for him. He said he would give her $200. Anyone should be warned of the sky behavior because it could lead to the charge of online solicitation of a minor. If you’re facing this charge, you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer.
Several days later, the teen sent the defendant topless picture of herself. Over the next few months, she sent at least three more pictures by text message. In one picture, she is completely nude. The teen testified that the defendant put his fingers in Regina and that she perform oral sex on him at least twice. Consent is not a defense to online solicitation of a minor.
It sounds trial strategy may be imperfectly executed. But the right to effective assistance of counsel does not entitled defendant to perfect counsel. The teen admitted that she was also texting someone named John. This was the defendant’s brother. She tested other people who worked at the club. One of them occasionally walked the teen home from work. The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer will cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. This is a way to undermine the witness’s credibility. If the witnesses credibility can be undermined, it may give rise to reasonable doubt.
The defense attorney stated on the record that he was going to demonstrate that the teen was having relationship with another guy who was using the defendant’s phone. The teen admitted she messed around with David during that summer. The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa question the teen about the defendant’s name been absent from the text messages. The attorney stated strategy was to show the state they cannot prove who sent the text messages. He sought to implement that strategy by introducing evidence that others were using the defendant’s phone.
Online solicitation of a minor carries a heavy penalty. This penalty can include prison time. Also, if convicted, the person will have to register as a sex offender. That’s why you need an aggressive and skilled criminal lawyer. You need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has offer. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale.
Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Dedicated Attention
Based on the text messages, the defense attorney also questioned the girl about the defense relationship with her sister. Attorney stated that he was going to show that the teen was tells about her sisters relationship. That’s why she was try to get back at the defendant for online solicitation of a minor. Attorney’s decision to introduce the text messages and evidence was clearly at trial strategy. A question the teen about the text messages, the defense attorney raised the possibility that the tax were not sent by the defendant. His cross-examination also tended to show that the girls testimony was not credible.
The defendant also complained that the defense counsel’s open the door to an officer’s testimony regarding his investigation was improper. The record reflected that the defendant attorney also point out that the officer had no direct knowledge of the case. The defendant asserted on appeal that this line of questioning about the state to listen testimony that the officer had investigated a different case of the defense online solicitation of a minor with a different complaint.
The defendant did not show the jury was aware of this of the case. He could not demonstrate that affected the outcome of the trial. He also made no claim that he would’ve been found not guilty of this not been done. Instead, the defendant asserted that there is a reasonable probability that they would’ve received a lesser sentence. Specifically, he argued they would’ve gotten committee supervision for all the charges.
Anytime you been charged with a sex related crime, you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer. Attorney Stephen Cale is a skilled criminal lawyer. He has handled numerous jury trials. His cases include online solicitation of a minor. For free initial consultation, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale dedicates his practice to criminal defense.
Lastly, the defendant complained about not having a limiting instruction as to three photographs only showed the girls expose press, not her genitals. He also argued against testimony that the defendant offered $200 to the girl if she sent him a topless photograph. Defendant argues that the jury should been instructed not to consider this is evidence of the charge defense but only for limited purpose. Juries are getting instructions on the law. There also can be a limited instruction that will limit the scope of the evidence.
Call testified that she sent multiple nude photographs to the defendant after a promise of payment. The prosecution question the girl about whether she received the money. Testified that after she in the defendant filed something, he promised to give her the money. The defense counsel then cross-examine the defendant about getting back at him and whether she was upset about not getting are $200.