Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Passion for Justice | 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 Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. His clients give him high reviews.

When the things that you want to criminal defense attorney Tulsa to do is fight hard to get the case against you dismissed. This is exactly what attorney Cale does. He files various pretrial motions to see if he can get a charge dismissed against his client. This can be done a number of ways. If the judge is unwilling to dismiss the case, that attorney Cale take the matter to jury trial that’s what the client wants to do. Attorney Cale is handled numerous jury trials, including murder.

A jury convicted the defendant for disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon. Her primary claim on appeal was that the evidence sees from her home under search warrant should been suppressed. The affidavit supporting the warrant was based largely on statements you made when interviewed by law enforcement officers. She argued that some of what she said was improperly coerced by officers that the affidavit include false descriptions of her statements. The 10th circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the police did not course the defendant when they told her of the original believed she could be prosecuted for providing false information to them.

Late in the summer, and the defendant a family visit a sporting good store in Tulsa. Her son, who was on parole time, pointed to a small pistol for defendant to inspect. Although they left without making a by, the defendant returned to the store and bought a 22 pistol. Several months later, the defendant purchased a rifle from a local pawn shop. A week later, the family returned to the sporting good store where the sun purchased two boxes of ammunition stop lifted other items. Store personnel confronted the sun, struggled with him, and called the police. The family were taken to the local police station. Some was arrested for shoplifting and the defendant was arrested for misdemeanor obstruction of justice.

Police learned that the sun was convicted felon and the defendant had but again the day before. The detective gave Miranda warnings to the defendant and reminded her of them later into the interview. She was question for about three hours, and to buy two or three short breaks. When asked our visit to the sporting good store to look for firearms, defendant a knowledge that she had by the pistol. She also knowledge that her son knew of the purchase and that he had seen again. She said that he might have fired the gun at her residence. The also volunteer that her son had shown her how to use the pistol in the shooting trip.

The detective asked whether defendant knew of any kind her home of the pistol. Twice denied that there were any others. When asked the third time, the defendant has Tabor for saying that she did not think so. Suspecting that she was going person, the detective worn to defend against line defendant Chase transfer revealed that there was another gun. Complained that the defendant light of about almost everything, the detective asked her why she bought the rifle. She responded should been shot three times. The detective briefly question her about whether her son was one shot her and then brought in his supervisor. The supervisor asked to look at the defendants like to see if they need to get medical attention look or her. The skin was broken and the defendant did not appear to have any injuries resembling bullet wounds.

Criminal defense attorney Tulsa Stephen Cale said they should never talk to police. The police will use many tricks to try to get you to make incriminating statements. It never helps to talk to the police. It can only hurt you. Attorney Cale will work hard to try to get statements made to police thrown out. This will help get a case dismissed.

The defendant argued that the District Court improperly refused to grant her a momentary possession jury instruction. She contended that the jury could have found that person possessed a firearm only briefly. The appellate court has never endorsed a momentary possession defense the charge based on the lawful possession of contraband. As noted that doesn’t need inside the matter because no case has presented facts that would justify the defense. If for to Doctor the defense it would only apply its defendant momentarily possessed contraband and intellect knowledge that he possessed contraband or had a legally justifiable reason to possess it temporarily. The evidence not satisfy these conditions. In the present context, there would need to be evidence that the sun had legally justified reason to possessed a firearm for prepared the time.

The defendant next turned to the validity of the search warrant. Evidence obtained under the search warrant of her home should be suppressed because the affidavit supporting the warrant was based on involuntary false statements, she argued. She said that the detective improperly coerced her to make incriminating statements by threatening her with a felony prosecution if she was not truthful. Additionally she said that the affidavit falsely reported that she said before the coercion that she may incriminate statements. The appellate court rejected these arguments. Because, as the defendant concedes, that is all that is necessary to sustain a warrant.

When reviewing the denial the motion suppress, the appellate court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. It looks at the district court’s finding of fact unless there clearly erroneous. The review will be de novo in the ultimate question of originals on the fourth amendment. On a specific issue of coercion, appellate court will review subsidiary factual questions, such as whether the police intimidate or threaten the suspect. If you looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has offered, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800.

The trial court judge’s major role determination of the fact. The increasing availability videotapes of traffic stops does not deprive the district courts of their expertise as findings of fact. Neither does alter precedent to the fact that appellate court so deference to the factual findings of the District Court. The appellate court will not exercise de novo review of the discourse account of the video evidence of in this case. If the court decides that portions of the search one affidavit are based on the lawful cost statements must exercise those tainted portions and determine whether the remainder the affidavit would support probable cause.