This content was written for Cale Law Office
Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Ecstasy Trial Lawyer

If you’ve been charged with possessing ecstasy, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale Law Office is free. Attorney Stephen Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense. He has nearly two decades of experience.

The DAs office charged the defendant with possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute. The defendant appealed his adverse ruling. He sought a motion to dismiss the charge. Here’s a summary the case.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial judge should have approved dismissal was to charge for violation of his constitutional rights. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts. Law pertaining to the matter at issue should be clearly defined. It should not be against the logic and effect the facts presented. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case because of the prosecutor’s violation of the fence right to counsel.

Motionless of the prosecutor ordered a deputy sheriff to interview him, knowing that the defendant had an attorney. The prosecutor agreed that a violation of his right to counsel to result in suppressing his statements. The district court sustained the motion to suppress, but denied his motion to dismiss. No evidence of interrogation was a minute at trial.

There’s no dispute that the deputy interviewed the defendant after criminal proceedings have begun on his truck charge. Defense counsel had entered an appearance. Deputy maintained that he smelled the relief because information from the questioning violates his right to counsel. You can’t Court of Criminal Appeals said that this argument was that without merit because there was no constitutional violation of his right to counsel.

The Fifth Amendment right to counsel arises when one who was in custody is interrogated. The advice constitutional rights the place must give before any custodial questioning triggers this right. The statement After custodial interrogation may be used against the defendant without a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights.

The sixth amendment right to counsel is triggered by the beginning of adversarial judicial proceedings. These may be initiated by way a formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, filing of an information, or arraignment. Both the fifth and sixth amendment rights to counsel apply to custodial interrogations after the beginning of adversarial proceedings. Both are the boat and waived in exactly the same manner.

In this case, the defendant was in jail interrogated. Also is no claim that his waiver was voluntary. He argues that it is law enforcement that approached him. This happened after he was appointed counsel. Officers asked him to submit to an interview. As consequence, these facts fall within the category of the six amendment right to assistance of counsel.

This right attaches once had serial processes been initiated. The defendant has the right to have counsel present at all critical stages of a criminal prosecution. This includes a custodial interrogation. It used be the case that once criminal defendant requested an attorney the police cannot initiate questioning or attempt to induce a waiver. However, the the U. S. Supreme Court later overruled that. Held that it would not be justified to presume that the defendant’s consent to police-initiated interrogation was voluntary of course simply because the defendant had priestly been appointed a lawyer.

Was the right to counsel has attached, the defendant is not want to speak to the police without counsel need only say that. At that point, not only must immediatel the petri by letter requests is illegal. The court further explained that evidence obtained by coercion would not be admitted trial. Here is the reason.

Under Miranda, he suspects subject custodial interrogation must be advised of his right to have a lawyer present during questioning, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The second was the defendant has invoked these rights, is not subject to further interrogation by authorities until counsel’s been appointed to him. An exception to this is if the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, the court conversation with the police.

For safeguard against coerced confessions is the 14th amendment requires that all statements introduced against a criminal defendant be made voluntarily. This is the rule regardless of whether the defendant is in custody or has an attorney. The court cannot presume the waiver is invalid. The defendant has an attorney may make a clear assertion of the right to counsel when officers initiate questioning. It may also way that right provides the religious when it is voluntary.

The decision to waive the right to counsel does not require legal device itself. Therefore, once a defendant is ready his Miranda rights and agrees to waive his rights, that is sufficient. The reason this case show that the deputy began questioning the defendant. This happened after he made an initial appearance and spoken to an attorney. The deputy read the defendant his Miranda rights and asked if he one to speak with him.

The defendant asked if he should speak to the deputy without an attorney present. The deputy informed them that it was his right to have an attorney present if he so desired. The defendant stated they would speak to the deputy. The deputy asked the defendant to review his rights priestly read him into print and sign his name on an advisor rights form. The defendant did so.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that he should never waive your rights. Always consult an attorney. Talking to the police almost never help you. Most of the time it hurt you. This is because the police are fishing for information to build a case against you.

In this case, the defendant has a right to counsel for the custodial interrogation. However, he knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights. The statement he made to the deputy was admissible. On the other hand, the statement was suppressed because all parties mistakenly believed that previous case law was still the law. Because the defendant statement was not unlawfully acquired, there is no constitutional violation.