This content was written for Cale Law Office

Anyone who has been charged with a crime needs to call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense.

One of the things that Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale tries to do is get confessions suppressed. That means getting a confession thrown out as evidence. It keeps the prosecutor from being able to use it. When this happens, often times the case is dismissed. Let’s take a look at instance where this happened.

This is the case of State vs. Sayerwinnie, a 2007 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals case. At a Jackson of the Denno hearing, the district judge ruled that Sayerwinnie’s confession must be suppressed. The state announced its intention to appeal. The trial court stated district court proceedings. The appellate court determined that the state had not shown that the review the case would be in the best interest of justice. Therefore denied the states appeal. The decision was based on the best interest of justice language found in the statute that restricts the state from filing appeals any time a court suppresses evidence.

Stay made no showing that it could not proceed without the suppressed evidence. Additionally, state did not make any argument that this evidence comprises of a substantial portion of its case and its ability to process of case will be restricted. In fact the state may no argument regarding the best interest of justice standard.

Issues may also arise concerning prosecutorial misconduct. The trial will not be reversed on allegations of prosecutes toward a misconduct unless the cumulative effect it was such as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. On appeal defendant may also argue ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to show that counsel was ineffective, the defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice.

There’s a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within a wide range of reasonable professional conduct. That means the defendant must overcome the presumption that under the circumstances, counsel’s conduct constituted sound trial strategy. In order to show prejudice, defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for the counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would’ve been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome. In the case of the capital sentencing proceeding, the relevant question is whether there is a reasonable probability that without the errors, sensor would’ve concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances to not warrant the death penalty.
The prosecution Municipal Court for violation of the city ordinance is a criminal matter because a finding of guilt carries with it criminal penalties such as incarceration refines or both. Stay statutes provide for the right to appeal to the Oklahoma court of criminal appeals from a district court order appeal. Even some municipal or city charges can have a penalty that entails jail. So in serious municipal tickets, it’s important for you to call an attorney. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800.

Attorney Stephen Cale at the Cale law office is well worth the money that you will spend for his representation. Stephen Cale’s about getting favorable results as best as a candidate the circumstances. Initial consultations at the Cale law office are always free.

Sometimes a judge will allow for the use of jury questionnaires. The court may allow the parties to issue questionnaires to be sent to members of the jury pool before jury selection commences. This is at the discretion of the court. It may also allow the results of the questionnaire to be used in voir dire.

This the time jury questionnaires are used in criminal cases. The benefits of using a jury questionnaire are numerous. Questionnaires case when the time required to do jury selection. However an attorney cannot rehash the information. Can also allow attorneys to weed out jurors who cannot serve in the cases for various reasons. In fact, jury questionnaires can speed up the jury selection process. Jury questionnaire may also point out particular areas that may need to be inquired upon, such as employment with law enforcement. Jurors may also be more likely to reveal certain answers that they would not reveal in front of others. The American Bar Association has approved the use of jury questionnaires. Simple soul cannot be repel with a deadly weapon where the assault is not such as to excite the assault a person’s fears.

In a 2007 case, the Obama Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the issue of whether a judicially authorized law enforcement interception of the defendant’s cell phone communications violated the security of Communications Act. In that case ages of the, Bureau of narcotics and dangerous drug control obtained authorization to monitor a specific cell phone number there were targets of the drug investigation. This allowed them to intercept needs eavesdrop on calls between defendants and others in a marijuana trafficking conspiracy. This information revealed the location of the marijuana. After getting a search warrant, law enforcement officer searched the defendant’s residence and seized about 85 pounds of marijuana, firearms, and cash.

The state charged the defendants with trafficking in illegal drugs and unlawful use of communication device. The defendant spent to suppress the evidence. The trial court concluded that the defendant cell phone to mutations were illegally intercepted and ordered the marijuana and all communication suppress from the evidence. The state appealed the pretrial ruling under the interest of justice provision.

Federal law prohibits unauthorized private and governmental inception of oral and wire communications. This is been so since 1934. Federal law continues to provide minimal protections for the primacy of indications. It authorizes interception and the editor of an investigation of certain offenses upon a judicial warrant. The federal authorizes the states to adopt in court statutes permitting the interception of wire, oral, or electronic indications and to grant greater, but not lesser protection than that available under federal law.