This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for aggressive representation in your criminal case, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. Attorney Stephen Cale will also provide you with a free defense strategy plan is custom-made for your case and that you can take him with you.

In a 2008 case, the defendant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs after former conviction of the felony. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a $5000 fine. One the arguments that he made was that he was deprived of due process of law when expired drug testing kit was used against him. The record show that the blood test kit and the procedures used to test his blood were statutory compliance, however, according to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the appellate court also did not find an abuse of discretion in admitting the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test without scientific foundation by expert witnesses. Results of the HGN test, predicated by proper foundation are to be considered the same manner as other field sobriety tests. Those other tests include walk and turn test and one leg stand test. The testimony of a deputy gave proper foundation for the mission of the HGN test in the case. Deputies were qualified to administer the test. The testimony related to the issue and test results was on offered is independent scientifically sound evidence of the defendant’s intoxication. Instead, it was offered and amended for the same purposes as other field sobriety test evidence, that being a physical act on the part of the defendant observed by the deputies contributing to the cumulative portrait of defendant being intoxicated in the deputies opinion.

Additionally, a scientific foundation for the test was not required as field sobriety tests are not based on scientific evidence and are not a scientific test in the sense that it requires a certain scientific reliability. Therefore, the other fry, Dahlberg or any other test establishing reliability or trustworthiness is applicable. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the Oklahoma court of criminal appeals concluded that since the HGN test was given in conjunction with other sobriety tests the form the basis of the officer’s opinion, then there was not reversible error.

In another case, the defendant was convicted of engaging in a pattern of criminal offenses. He was the sheriff of Custer County. Pursuant to his election, the defendant was appointed to serve on a drug court team. His office can directed urinalysis testing of the drug court participants in one of his deputies was a drug court compliance officer. The defendant participated in the drug court team. This case was from 2009.

The defendant befriended a drug court participant. He repeatedly telephoned her and asked that she travel from Custer County to his hotel room in Oklahoma city. The woman gave in when the defendant demanded that she me him or he would vote for her termination from drug court. When she arrived at the hotel, the defendant provide her with alcohol, engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and performed oral sodomy on her. Afterwards, he engaged in sexual intercourse with her at her home, and of a mother friend, at a motel, and that the defendant’s home was wife was on vacation.

During this timeframe, the defendant intervened in the woman’s UA testing at the Custer County jail. He instructed his employees to permit her to test in the courthouse bathroom which was nicer than the gel restroom. At least two occasions, the defendant intervened and stopped the gel employees from reporting the woman for a positive test. In another instance, the defendant assisted drug court compliance officer with an investigation into drug court participant. He contacted the drug court judge and asked that she be taken into custody. The defendant painted a grim picture of jail, termination from drug court, and an imprisonment for the woman. He told her that he could save her from prison to make her stay in the gel more comfortable. He pulled off the road near to Barnes and told the woman that he would help her if she would help him. The defendant directed her to perform oral sodomy on him and engage in sexual intercourse with her. Records within the Sheriff’s Department reflected that it took the defendant about 44 minutes to transport the woman five miles from her home to the jail.

Another woman contacted informant and said that she had DNA evidence proven the sexual relationship between the Sheriff and her. There was a further investigation. At trial the defendant denied the allegations. However, he admitted a sexual relationship with one woman but denied that there was any unlawful about it. He was forced to admit that the drug court had control or authority over the lives of its participants.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the drug court programs are stature Lord Tori Lee required by law to provide visual supervision of the participants. The judge overseeing a defendant in a drug court program is part of the team. At minimum, the team should consist of the sign judge, disc attorney, and a defense attorney. Drug court team can designate other members to assist. By statute, the sheriff of the county is required to participate in the initial review of an offender to determine their eligibility for the program at their house in the county jail.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the evidence against the sheriff was sufficient. Viewing the evidence in the case in the light most favorable to the state, it was sufficient to prove the unoriginal doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offenses concerning one the women.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale takes every case seriously, he will meet with you and talk of your case and layout a defense strategy to try to get the best possible result for you. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800.