Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Marijuana Distribution 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. Your initial consultation is free. Schedule your appointment with attorney Stephen Cale. He has nearly 20 years of experience. He also focuses on criminal defense. So he has the right kind of experience.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count possessing a firearm and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. In the plea agreement, the parties agree to the present term of 180 months. Several years later, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the sentence.

In another case, prosecutors charged the defendant with conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute over a kilogram of heroin. They also charged him with a methamphetamine charge. The defendant challenges the conviction, arguing that the prosecution violated his rights by felon to disclose certain impeachment information. Additionally, he argued that the trial court erred by permitting an expert witness to offer an opinion on his mental state.

This truck trafficking case arose from a confidential sting operation. The undercover operation again in July, when law enforcement authorities received information that the defendant in a codefendant claimed to be able to deliver a large amount of methamphetamine and heroin. Pertaining be a drug buyer, the informant met the defendant in Oregon. He raised for the delivery of drugs to Colorado. During these negotiations, the defendant recognized. The day of the delivery, law enforcement track defense phone and car to a hotel. Following the arrest, agents discovered proximate to pounds of heroin and 17 pounds of methamphetamine in the front and that the defendant’s car. This was in behind the headlights.

Forensic analysis revealed that the defendant’s fingerprints were on the drugs and the internal packaging. An expert testified as to who fingerprints were located on wrappings. The prosecution opposed certain aspects of the defendant’s discovery request the district court directed the parties to re-brief issues concerning the scope of the prosecution’s grounds. Disclosure requirement. Defendant challenge the adequacy and completeness of the prosecution’s disclosure. First, the claimant the summer information was too sparse to enable his counsel to impeach confidential informants. He also the said that he did not provide enough information for an impeachment related investigation into the backgrounds. Secondly, he speculated that based on the contents of the summer disclosures, DA must have additional materials.

Criminal defense attorney Tulsa Stephen Cale says that you should never talk to law enforcement. Talking to law enforcement will never help you. Instead, it will only hurt you. Police will use tricks to get you to provide information that will make you look guilty. Do not do this. The only thing you should tell all enforcement is the one an attorney.

The defendant argued that the prosecution head information that was material. The appellate court first looks at the basic principles behind the Brady decision and following cases. The U. S. Supreme Court concluded that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment. It doesn’t matter whether there is good faith or bad faith on the part of the prosecution. For Brady purposes, exculpatory evidence includes evidence usable only for impeachment purposes impeachment evidence is exculpatory for Brady purposes. Further, the prosecution’s Brady obligation carries an underlining duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the prosecution’s behalf in the case.

The prosecution for Brady purposes encompasses not only the individual prosecutor in the case, but also extends the prosecutor’s entire office, as well as law enforcement personnel and other arms of the state involved in investigative aspects of a particular criminal venture. In order to establish a Brady violation, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following. One, that the prosecution suppresses evidence. Two, the evidence was favorable to the defendant. And third, the evidence was material. Evidence is material in a Brady only if there’s a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed the defense, the result of the proceeding would’ve been different. A reasonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

The appellate court said that was important to note that there’s no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case. The Brady role is based on the requirement of due process. This is to ensure that a miscarriage of justice does not occur. Therefore, the prosecutor’s not required to deliver his entire file to the defense counsel. Instead, he must only disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive him of a fair trial. Just because information may aid a defendant in the preparation of this case is not mean that prosecution is obliged to disclose it. Criminal defense attorney Tulsa Stephen Cale works hard to gather as much evidence from the prosecution as he can.

Whether or not procedural rules authorizing such products cover might be discernible, the Constitution surely does not demand that much. The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might’ve helped the defense, is not establishing materiality in the constitutional sense. The Constitution does not require the prosecution to divulge every possible shred of evidence that could conceivably benefit the defendant. In order to prevail on a Brady claim, the defendant must marshal arguments that are more than just speculative. The must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that these criteria are satisfied.

Where there is evidence that the prosecution suppress the information in a constant material exculpatory evidence, then there is a violation. The Brady case mandates that the prosecution must turn over all potentially exculpatory evidence is possession. Courts tend to be reluctant to undertake a pretrial review of Brady requests. This is because this can impose a heavy burden on judicial resources. A defendant seeking a court review files contain at least make it possible showing of such.