Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Drug Crimes Lawyer | 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. Attorney Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. That means he has the right kind of experience for your case.
When the first things that attorney Cale tries to do is get the case dismissed. He does this by filing several motions. He will file a discovery motion. This forces the state to produce evidence that has in the case. This includes both evidence against the defendant and evidence that is in the defendant’s favor. Attorney Cale is had success in getting cases dismissed. He enjoys fighting against the DA’s office.
The defendant was traveling on a bus when it stopped at a truck stop for passenger break. During the stop, to patrol agents without the drug dogs discovered several pounds of methamphetamine and the defendants carry on luggage. He was arrested but released from custody. The next month, the defendant’s then-attorney met with the FBI agent where the defendant lived. Having traveled to Las Vegas and receiving math from his father laws for drug source. The defendant was indicted with possession of the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Upon conviction, he was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, the mandatory minimum.
The defendant filed a motion claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for three reasons. He said that his counsel felt is officially bison concerning the benefits of pleading guilty in the consequences of his prior convictions. He also said that his attorney should negotiate a lower sense in light of a memorandum issued by the Attorney General Eric Holder. This memo held that prosecutors were not to charge the quality of drugs needed to trigger mandatory minimum sentences if the defendant satisfied certain criteria. He also argued that his attorney was deficient and not interviewing investigating the best passengers appellant challenge the methamphetamine purity or the government’s failure to provide a chemist as a witness. The judge denied the motion. The judge found that the attorney was not ineffective and had adequately defended his client.
Another case, the defendant was convicted of various drug crimes. He contended that the district court made a number of errors that undermine the fairness of his trial. Because he did not object to the time, the appellate court reviewed must his arguments for plain error. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not plainly error in allowing opinion testimony from the detectives who are investigating the drug ring. Here’s a summary the case.
The defendant was subject to investigation for distribution of methamphetamine. Based on surveillance and recorded conversation from intent to control purchase, detectives obtain a search warrant on the defense residence. There they found various drug paraphernalia. When confronted by officers, the defendant made several incriminating statements. For example, during the course of the search of his residence, the defendant asked the detective about drugs found and how much the way. Even though he later disclaimed any ownership or knowledge of against, the defendant also asked the detective in the light a certain gun found inside. He also admitted that there was a hang inside the house. Defendant also is not shy about his role in narcotics trafficking. He told the detective that had been getting a pound or two of methamphetamine at the time from a person named Pisces.
Criminal defense attorney Tulsa Stephen Cale says that you should never talk to police. You will only hurt yourself. Talking to police can never help you. It will only hurt you. This is true whether or not you actually commit a crime or you are innocent. The police will use tricks to get you to confess even if you are innocent. Many people have been wrongly convicted because the police trick them into making certain statements that incriminated them.
Based on the seized evidence, incriminating statements, and testimony presented at trial, a jury convicted the defendant and sentenced him to a total of 20 years. The defendant raised three issues on appeal. He first argued that the two detectives should not been allowed to testify about linguistics and indicators of narcotic distribution without first, find the detectives as experts. Secondly, he argued that permitting an officer to testify both as an expert in effect when this without public cause the jury about these dual roles was an error. Lastly, he said that allowing a detective to mention that when he arrested the defendant the defendant and that his Miranda rights should not been brought out at trial. The defendant contended portions of the detective’s testimonies were expert opinion wrongly admitted under the guise of lay opinion. The defendant failed to object to the intent to active’s testimony at trial. Therefore he did not dispute. The district court on notice of testimony was improper. The district court’s decision to admit expertly testimonies were delayed within the review for an abuse of discretion. Plain error occurs when there is error that is plain which affect substantial rights in which seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
If you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer, then you need to find somebody has the right kind of experience. Attorney Stephen Cale’s been practicing for nearly 20 years. He also focuses his practice on criminal defense. That means that he has the right kind of experience. Attorney Cale is a hard fighter for his clients.
An otherwise plain error may be harmless and tell a constitute adequate quest for reversal when it’s unlikely that the testimony want the particular issue has any serious impact on the outcome of the trial. For example, when the jury’s Artie heard similar testimony, or other evidence of the defendant’s guilt presented at trial of substantial’s or strong. To properly present for an issue, parties can to praise objection must be sufficient sufficiently specific. In light of the attorney’s failure to offer up a timely specific objection to the evidence the appellate court will review for plain error. Objection cannot be vague or open-ended. In the specifically identify the alleged error. There to largest this objection precludes appellate review except for plain error. He was counsel might not explain evidentiary basis of his argument as thoroughly as might ideally be desired, counsel must at least substantially satisfy the requirements of putting the court on notice as to his concern.