This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you need a Tulsa criminal defense attorney with superb lawyering skills, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation. You’ll also be provided with a complimentary defense strategy plan.
In 1988 a man named Howard was found dead in his apartment. Had been severely beaten with a fireplace poker. Her bloodstains throughout his apartment. His car keys and never $200 was missing. The man had been befriended a man and helped him kill the job and stay fair. The victim was unaware that the assailant had escaped from prison and been convicted of robbery by force.
The defendant was arrested in another state. He was trying the victim’s car at the time. The defendant admitted that he and the victim were in a fight. He was afraid that the victim was going to call police on him. The man did not want to go to prison.
The state’s case comprised of evidence that showed that the victim’s tag was not provoked. There was evidence that the victim had been beaten with a stick and with an ashtray. He had been beaten multiple truck times. This broke his bones.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale handles a wide array of crimes. He’s even handled some of the most serious charges like murder. Whether you’ve been charged with a felony or misdemeanor, give Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale a call at 918-277-4800.
The US Supreme Court is held that the test for whether not a juror has been properly skewed is with jurors view would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in a constant in accordance with instructions of his oath. Journal the properly dismissed if he states he or she cannot consider the death penalty in a death penalty case.
In January 2004 mother allowed her daughter to spend the night with a man who is a family acquaintance. Girl was 11 years old. There the night when the growing kind of that in his house, the man forced her to undress and sexually assaulted her. Her testimony at trial by the salt was graphic and detailed.
She escaped from the man a running to another bedroom occupied by woman and her family. After hearing the girls account, the woman drove her back to her mother who accompanied her to the hospital. There she will underwent a sexual assault examination. The examination disclose a tear in her rectal area consistent with her report of being sexually assaulted.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale aggressively represents his clients no matter what the charge. He will aggressively defend anyone charged with a sex crime. A person is always presumed to be innocent. The presumption continues unless a person is found guilty.
The defendant made a statement to police. He admitted the sexual conduct with a child. However he stated that he was an unwilling participant and that the child had attacked him.
On appeal, the defendant argued that his sixth amendment guarantee was violated with the judge limited his cross-examination of the victim. He argued that the trial court committed Arab by refusing to allow time to continue before the jury is questioning the child concerning indication that she my been taking. The sixth amendment guarantees that the right to cross-examine witnesses. Additionally, it allows a judge place reasonable limits on cross-examination. Not every limitation of cross-examination is contrary to the sixth amendment. Judges have wide discretion imposing reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on the concerns of harassment, prejudice, confusion of shoes, the witnesses safety, or repeated questioning that is not relevant.
Additionally, the defendant claimed that his statements to the detective should been suppressed because the are clearly made after he asserted his right to counsel. His argument was that is incriminating statement should not have been immiscible. However, the record showed that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights prior to questioning.
Whether a person is a note his right to counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. The defendant was in custody and has invoked his right to counsel may not be questioned further by authorities was a lawyers been made available or the suspect initiates the conversation. Assessment the state is desired to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that original police officer would understand that the statement is a request for an attorney. Statements like maybe I should talk to a lawyer will be held to be ambiguous.
Attorney Stephen Cale advises that you should never talk to police. For reasons, take a look at his top 10 reasons not to talk to police. If you think that you’ve been wrongly questioned by police, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800.
Another way to get a case dismissed is to argue that the prosecution for the crime was barred by the statute of limitations. The issue of statue limitations is not raised the trial court level, then it is waived. Statute of limitations recent jurisdictional issue. Assess raised, the presumption is that the statute is right state has the obligation to overcome this presumption. This issue can be raised on appeal.
By waiving the statue limitations applicable to the particular crime, a defendant neither confers subject matter jurisdiction the court nor power on the state to prosecute. Instead the waiver is binding on the defendant has an agreement not to object to the filing the charge be on the time bounds established by the statutory limit. However because the statue limitations may opt operate is an absolute barred prosecution and implicates at least a temporary jurisdictional limit on the power the court to decided case as well states part of prosecute, there is not a presumption that the defendant has waived that defense through failing to raise it at the trial court level.
An appellate court will review a denial of the defendants motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the abuse of discretion standard. This is a two-pronged test. One factor is whether the guilty plea was made it knowingly and voluntarily. The second factor is whether the court accepting the guilty plea had jurisdiction to accept the plea.