Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Fighting for His Clients | Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer, then call this number. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale has nearly 20 years of experience. Plus he has the right kind of experience because he focuses his practice on criminal defense. Attorney Cale fights hard for his clients

A jury convicted the defendant of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and 11 counts of bank fraud. This arose from his participation scheme to submit false trial requested invoices to obtain bank loans. The district court sentenced him to 33 months in prison and ordered him to pay restitution. The defendant Ray several issues on appeal concerning jury instructions, withheld impeachment evidence and restitution amounts.

Before trial, a codefendant plea guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and agree to testify as a prosecution witness at trial. The defendant chose to defend the charges a trial. During the time charts in the information, defendant served as president of five companies. One of these companies attained a large loan form an international bank. Sometime during the development of the property, the defendant agreed to a fraudulent scheme in which his codefendant submitted fraudulent monthly draw request for an performed work and duplicate trial request for work already performed elsewhere. His brother scheme, the defendants included with the trial requested pictures of construction work supposedly completed at the project. Misled by this false information, the bank paid a large sum of money and draw requests.

When you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has in the area, there is one place to call. Call attorney Stephen Cale of the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale has handled numerous jury trials. He likes fighting against the prosecution. Attorney Cale will do everything that he can’t get the best possible result for you. He has high reviews and his clients highly recommend him.

The jury convicted the defendant conspiracy count 11 counts of bank fraud. The defendant did not object to a presentence investigation report or any of its contents. The District Court adopted the report. One of things of the defendant complained about on appeal was with regard to the jury instructions. The appellate court review the jury instructions in the context of the entire trial to determine if they accurately state the governing law and provide the jury with an accurate understanding of the relevant legal standards and factual issues in the case. The defendant argued that the district were plainly erred by not including intent to defraud us an element of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Because the defendant did not object to this jury instruction, the appellate court reviewed under the plain error standard. Even though the conspiracy instructions not list intensive fraud is a, conspiracy, the district court cure this deficiency by incorporating into the conspiracy instruction that same intent element from instruction.

Secondly, the defendant argued that the district court should grant have a new trial. The Apollo for motion for new trial under the Federal rules of evidence. He argued that the press cushion withheld statements from him during the trial. In particular, a witness reported that the defendant had intentionally withheld distributions from one of his limited liability companies to prevent the bank from recovering Monday under it’s charging order against the company. Even though the FBI in the prosecutor knew about this information, the prosecution withheld this information from him until after his trial. The district court denied the motion concluding that the statement was merely chemical of impeachment evidence.

Criminal defense attorney Tulsa Stephen Cale will file various motions to try to get a charge dismissed. First, he will file discovery motion. This forces the prosecution to turn over evidence that has against the defendant. This means both favorable and unfavorable evidence. Secondly, he will look at the charge to see if it was been written properly. If not, he will try to get dismissed. Attorney Cale also follow motion to quash to try to get the charge dismissed against his client. His been successful doing this in many cases.

To get a new trial based on a pretty violation, the defendant must show three things. First the must show that the prosecution suppressed evidence. Secondly must show that the evidence was favorable to the defendant. And lastly, the show that the evidence was material. Due process mandates disclosure by the prosecution all evidence that favors the defendant in this material it to guilt or punishment. Prosecution a knowledge that did not furnish the defendant the victim impact statement to after the trial. Send a press was marginally favorable to the defendant. Evidence is favorable if it’s exculpatory or impeaching.

Impeachment evidence is exculpatory for Brady purposes. Here the defendant contends they could’ve impeached the witness with information from the statement about his efforts to frustrate the bank recruitment efforts. Specifically at trial, the defendant wanted to impeach the witnesses direct testimony that he had except responsibility for the crime. In any event, the fence pretty claim fails on the third step because it information in the statement was not material. Evidence is material if there’s a reasonably probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, result in a proceeding would’ve been different. Original probability is a probability sufficient to undermine the competence in the outcome.

Where evidence and significantly impacts the degree of impeachment, and generally will not be sufficient to meet the materiality standard. For example, where defendant is already attacked the witness’s credibility, additional impeachment evidence will generate be immaterial and will not provide a basis for Brady claim. The record confirms that the defendant effectively impeached the witness at trial. Any additional impeachment evidence we been kicked cannot have insufficient to support a pretty violation. Criminal defense attorney Tulsa Stephen Cale advises that you should never talk to law enforcement.

District court may order criminal restitution only as authorized by statute. Here, the court ordered the defendant to pay restitution under specific statute. That statute mandates that the district court order restitution under convictions for fraud or deceit. The defendant agrees that the statute require the district court order restitution. However he disputes the district courts restitution amount. As in Kathleen loss of the guidelines, the district court must redo defense restitution obligation to account for money received by the victim the sale.