Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Top Notch Trial 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? Then 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. Plus he’s the right kind of attorney because he focuses his practice on criminal defense. He is an experienced trial lawyer and will work hard for you.
A jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony. The jury sentenced him to life imprisonment on count one and 10 years in prison and count to. The judge’s sentence accordingly. After sentencing, the defendant filed a motion for new trial with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. He basis appeal on newly discovered evidence. The motion contained affidavits from the defendant, a witness, appellate counsel, as well as exhibits supporting the motion.
A few months later, the appellate court said the case to the district court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The judge conducted an evidentiary hearing, her testimony witnesses, and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the questions presented by the appellate court. The defendant later filed a supplement a brief has permitted by order the court. The state’s position on the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing and findings of the trial court. If you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has, then call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800.
The state did not file a supplemental brief in time to allow them to be heard. The defendant was convicted a trial based on circumstantial evidence. The state presented no living eyewitnesses to the murder self. At the time of the defendants trial, the parties believe that the murder weapon had not been recovered. States evidence indicated that the defendant had a possible motive for the crime an opportunity to commit. Evidence also indicated the defendant’s possession of a weapon relative to a crime. However, evidence to not directly connect the defendant or particular weapon to the murder. The defendant also made statements from the time of the crime that he might be considered incriminating.
The facts developed at the hearing show that the defendant was convicted of this murder in 2016 in Tulsa County. Shortly before this conviction, another man was housed with the defendant of Tulsa County jail while awaiting formal sentencing. Spend and never met the defendant before but the men eventually discuss the case while in jail. At some time, the summit told the defendant that his codefendant had a minute committing a drug-related robbery-murder. This man also told cellmate the police had taken a pistol from him of time of his arrest. It also stated that the man was already been prosecuted for the murder he had committed.
You need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer. Do yourself a favor and call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense. He aggressively represents his clients. That’s why so many of them give him high reviews. He is well worth the money.
From these conversations, the cellmate and the defendants and relies that the defendant was a person charged with and convicted with the murder confessed by the other person. The defendant provides this information to his appellate defense counsel, who took immediate action on the defendant’s behalf. Appellate counsel confirmed that Tulsa police had arrested the other guy 20 days after the murder. Police have seized a pistol from him. With cooperation from prosecutors and police, defense counsel range for ballistic comparison of the weapon taken from the other guy to the bullet recovered from the murder victim in the case. Ballistics analysts the Tulsa forensic laboratory match the weapon seized from the guy to the bullet recovered from the victim. None of this evidence was presented by the jury in the defense case.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals analyze the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence to determine the following: 1) whether the evidence could been discovered for the trial with reasonable diligence; 2) whether the evidence is material is to guilt or punishment; 3) whether the evidence is cumulative to the other evidence at trial; and 4) whether the evidence creates a reasonable probability that, if introduced the trial, it would change the outcome. The District Court made the following findings and conclusions based on the existing record in the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing.
Evidence of the alleged confession of murder in that person’s possession of the murder weapon at the time could not been discovered by the defendant before his trial with reasonable diligence. The defendant did not know whether he knew these are people before trial. The confession was known only to one person into witnesses. The defendant cannot have regionally discovered the link between the two in the confession. This evidence, and for the evidence may not yet be developed as a result of these new discoveries. Is material to the defendant’s guilt or innocence of this murder.
If you’ve been charged with a serious crime, you need to hire 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. Attorney Cale is handled numerous jury trials. He handles some of the most serious charges, including murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, child abuse, rape and other sex crimes. He is a skilled criminal defense attorney.
Newly discovered evidence, considered in light of circumstantial evidence of guilt presented at trial, creates a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would’ve been different. The trial court’s findings substantially support evidence that there should be a new trial. Therefore, the conviction was reversed and remanded for new trial. The state candidly conceded not demand that the evidence was newly discovered and was material to the defendant’s guilt.