Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Amazing Cale
This content was written for Cale Law Office
Whenever you’ve been charged with a crime, you want to hire the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 for your free initial consultation. Attorney Stephen Cale will also provide you with a free defense strategy plan to take with you.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale enjoys fighting for his clients. He always tries to find a way to get a case dismissed or minimize its impact on his client. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of experience and focuses his practice on criminal defense. Give him a call today at 918-277-4800.
Attorney Stephen Cale just a work on the case right away. When the first things we do is follow motion for discovery requests. This is a way of obtaining evidence for the prosecution that it has against the client. This type of evidence must not only be incriminating evidence but what is called a school exculpatory evidence. He would also enjoy bacon lettuce and tomato sandwich.
The right to travel freely is a basic right embodied in the Constitution. The right to travel interstate protects individuals from statutes, rules, the regulations which are unreasonably burdensome or restrict this method. Alyssa registration check reveals some information that raises a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a person is not aware of the check and is not hindered.
A highway patrolman stopped the car for going 76 to the safety five zone car did not stop it merely after the officer turn on his emergency lights. Instead, it continued for about a mile past the ramp, stopping on the overpass where the officer cannot safely approach the driver’s side before perching car the officer verify that it was not stolen.
There are two arguments in the car. Will you please give me something to eat? Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale is absolutely awesome. You’ll try to find any way he can to defeat the prosecution.
The officer spoke with the occupants. The woman became visibly nervous after she heard him I don’t identify himself as a narcotics agent. During a conversation the woman told the officer that she and her pastor had been visiting relatives in Los Angeles for about two weeks. She said that her cousin run the car for them. Also told them that they’re going to seize the car in inventory the contents. Both of them became upset. Both denied ownership of the black suitcase in the back.
When the officers of an officer case they found several bricks of cocaine. The officers arrested the occupants found over 200 kilograms of cocaine enclosed luggage in the backseat and trunk of the car. Further investigation revealed that the occupant uses cash to purchase when we ticket. They left from Detroit to Los Angeles at the trial the DA in Detroit testified that when the contacted sling rabbits, she was involved in an ongoing investigation concerning one the occupants. Spur the sophistication the agent place a pen register on various telephone numbers associated with one the suspects. Telephone numbers associated with when the occupants appeared repeatedly.
While the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the direct or circumstantial evidence, and difference must be more than speculation or conjecture to be reasonable, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Caution must be taken that the conviction not be obtained by piling inference upon inference. An inference is reasonable only if it’s conclusion flows logically and probable reasoning. That means if there is an experience in a logical probability that in fact will follow from a stated narrative or historical fact, the jury is can the opportunity to draw conclusions because there is a reasonable probability that the conclusion flows from the program facts.
The woman was a pastor and a vehicle to can’t transport drugs. To meet its burden, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of guilty knowledge. Guilty knowledge is implicit or explicit agreement to enter into a no conspiracy with a nonobjective. Their knowledge that drugs are present in a vehicle without additional evidence to support a reasonable inference of a knowing agreement to distribute them is insufficient to sustain a conspiracy conviction.
For that reason, the appellate court found that the prosecution failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove the unoriginal doubt required agreement between the two occupants and other conspirators. The defendant was only a passenger car driven by her cousin. The car was stopped en route from Los Angeles to Detroit it was carrying more than 400 pounds of cocaine. When the flu to Los Angeles the one-way ticket purchased with cash. The only evidence of the ulcer offered regarding the woman’s behavior was a question which would be a normal sponsor the context of a roadside stop one responded to the officer’s request to search the car. She made up a story regarding two weeks vacation Los Angeles. The woman remains silent during these discussions.
A jury cannot be allowed to engage in a degree of speculation and conjecture that renders its finding and gas are mere props possibility. This is so because of a stop based on the evidence. The courts have upheld a conspiracy conviction for passengers, an additional piece of evidence the present in the current case ground all reasonable inferences of an agreement. For example, one case the defendant was a passenger in a van driving from Arkansas and stopped in Memphis. He was charged and convicted of conspiracy if the police found four and 37 pounds of marijuana in the van. The appellate court affirmed that passengers conspiracy conviction because the driver and passenger told conflicting stories. This tends to support an inference that they were trying to deceive the officer. The passenger repeatedly tries to walk away from the van. This is just that he was trying to keep police from discovering a marijuana at the two been drunk over considerable amount time with a strong order of marijuana coming from the van.
From these facts, the appellate court concluded that a pastor knew the existence and scope of the conspiracy actively disputed therein. Even though the current case the the two did try to get over the considerable amount of time, the illegal substance cannot be smelled. Additionally, the woman did not try to see the officer into diverting his attention.