Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Constitutional Law | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a crime, you want the best possible defense. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 your initial consultation with Cale law office is free. You also get a free defense strategy plan.
Oklahoma prohibits the destruction of public buildings. Anyone who willfully burns, destroys or injures it any public buildings or improvements this guilty of a misdemeanor. That crime is punishable for up to 25 years in prison.
There’s actually case surrounding the statute in 1976. The defendant was an inmate in a maximum-security unit. There is a disruption in the present. During this disruption, someone destroyed fixtures and plumbing the defendant’s cell. The defendant was the only one in that cell.
Witnesses with the defendant testified that to guesstimate used during the disturbance. The defendant testified that because teargas spread to his cell, he destroyed the plumbing fixtures to get fresh air. The defendant was convicted and appealed.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erroneously overruled his motion to dismiss based on a denial of his right speedy trial. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the delay in the case was not excessive. Additionally, the defendant did not allege any prejudiced by the delay.
The U. S. Supreme Court is held that link the delay in actual prejudice are two factors to be considered when the plying a balancing test to an allegation a speedy trial violation. Another factor is whether or not the defendant asserted his right to speedy trial. In this case, the appellate court found that the defendant was not denied the right speedy trial.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale will get started your case right away. He begins by outlining a defense strategy plan. This includes filing a discovery motion to force the state to turn over evidence. The prosecution is required to turn over evidence that it has against the defendant. This was required to turn over evidence that may be favorable to the defendant.
Attorney Cale also looks to see if the charge is invalid on its face. If you believe to see it is, he will file a motion to dismiss the charge. He’s been successful in getting the charge dismissed on this basis. If you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation.
Oklahoma also makes it a crime to use a flag advertising. Under the statute, any person, corporation or company who uses a flag or the coat of arms of United States on an advertisement in order to gain profit is guilty of a misdemeanor. However, the statute is likely unconstitutional, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale has handled many constitutional issues. He enjoys getting a case is dismissed based on constitutional grounds.
Oklahoma also has a criminal statute that makes it illegal to tear, burn, trample upon, mutilate, the face, or destroy a U. S. flag. This crime is a felony. But the statute also is likely unconstitutional, according to Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.
The statute defines the word to file to include conduct which brings shame and disgrace upon any flag for the unpatriotic or profane purpose. The term flag of the United States includes city picture, representation of a flag or item to the person with the belief is a flag of the United States. A person convicted of this crime can be punished with a fine of up to $3,000 or not more than three years in prison.
Oklahoma statutes also provide a separate section for the crime of conspiracy. The crime is a misdemeanor and less the crime is a conspiracy to commit a felony, or there is a different punishment prescribed by statute. Conspiracy to commit a felony is punishable by fine of up to $5,000 or 10 years in prison.
The defendant argued that the state did not meet its burden of proof because the testimony at trial was not back down by at least one criminal witness. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient. In 1923, court case held that no person can be convicted of perjury except upon the testimony of two credible witnesses or of one criminal witness strongly corroborated by other evidence. However, that case was abolished in 1981 with the statute. That statute provides that proof of guilt be unoriginal doubt is sufficient for conviction it’s not necessary to be provided by a certain number of witnesses.
Two officers testified to events following the shooting. They specifically stated at least two persons fired in the house. Shock actions from two to were found in the house. Ballistics analysis. Walls in the door the later revealed that two different size bullets make the holes. Both the defendant testified that no one but another guy had again or find again. Therefore, for sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
The defendant and his accomplices burglarized the home on the outskirts of town. According to two neighbors, the defendant was driving slowly in a station wagon in the vicinity of the home at the time the burglary has been committed. The neighbors called police about strange things they had seen. But when the police arrived to investigate, when was in the car.
The police report the required form of the road. The officer arrived the fall the road. She was completely naked. The defendant was one of only three defendants who testified at trial. She admitted to having been in the car the day if not a question. However, she died knowing of the crimes that the codefendants were committing. The defendant explained that she fled the car with police approach to investigate because should be drinking you had a driver’s license. So there is also some marijuana vehicle.
On appeal, she argued that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to sever trial from that of her co-defendants. She argued that led the state to this evidence into her codefendants’ confession deprived her of a fair trial. The defendant filed a pretrial motion to separate trial in which she argued for seven the admission at the preliminary hearing of incriminating statements made by the codefendants.The trial court denied her motion and she renewed her objection at trial.