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

If you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of experience. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. He has handled a number of serious cases including murder.

A jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder the jury set punishment at life imprisonment without the possibility parole. The judge sentence accordingly. The defendant appealed. The case was primarily an issue of the legal question on appeal. Here’s a summary the case.

Prior to jury selection, the trial court announced that it would called 22 names and then the state and the defense when each have five peremptory challenges. The trial court stated it would offer unlimited challenges for cause. Defendant argued that he must be granted the trial because he was not afforded the statutorily allowed number of peremptory challenges in his first-degree murder trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed.

The Oklahoma statutes provide in first-degree murder cases, the defendant is entitled to nine peremptory challenges. This language is clear and unambiguous. The trial court mistakenly did not follow the statute. The defendant should been allowed nine peremptory challenges. This error deprived the defendant of the statutory right and his constitutional right to due process of law.

In a 2000 one case, the defendant was charged with first meet murder and tried jointly with the codefendant it was not charged with murder. The trial court require the defendant to share five peremptory challenges. In that case, the appellate court found this required reversal of the conviction. The denial the full number of peremptory challenges allow by the state statutes amount to structural error that affected the entire trial. The defense counsel objected at trial and set in the facts of this case the error cannot be harmless.

In yet another case, the appellate court found that denial of three peremptory challenges in murder prosecution was so erroneous that it prevented the entire trial. The prosecution admitted that a defendant is complemented peremptory challenges is error. However, is suggested that the error should be considered harmless because it was way by the defendant. State argues that counsel’s failure to object ways review for all but plain error and further argues that the defendant did not make a sufficient record to prove prejudice by claiming he was forced to keep objects on jurors because of the Trial Court, Harold peremptory challenges.

In 20 cases, the defendant alleged that he was not given the full complement of statutory prescribed peremptory challenges. The court in those cases require the defendant to prove prejudice. Is not there alone that reverses judgment of convictions of the crime the state. Stated terror plus injury. The burden is on the defendant to establish the fact that he was prejudiced by his substantial rights by the commission of the error. However the jury selection the case was not transcribed and there was nothing in the appeal record for the court review.

In Ross vs. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the loss of peremptory challenges constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The high court held that because peremptory challenges or creature statute is not required by the Constitution, the state must determine the number of peremptory challenges allowed into to find a purpose and manner. As such, the right to peremptory challenges is denied or impaired only the defendant does not receive that which the state law provides.

Oklahoma law outlines the number of peremptory challenges that a defendant is allowed. For first-degree murder cases, the defendant is allowed nine peremptory challenges. Oklahoma has determined that the number of peremptory challenges allowed the five the purpose. Defend this case with defendant a first-degree murder charge. He only received five challenges instead of nine. While the right number of peremptory challenges is not protected under the federal Constitution, is safeguarded by Oklahoma statutes, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Depriving the defendant of the right exercise nine peremptory challenges constitutes a violation of due process.

This is not a case where the defendant claimed that he was denied a full complement of challenges because he had to exercise want to remove a juror that he thought the trial court should remove for cause. In this case, the defendant is not afforded for challenges to which he was entitled. The defendant did not receive all that was due to him under Oklahoma law. A constitutional error does not make the required reversal of his if it is subject to harmless error analysis. The common thread connecting the analysis is that each involved chart error. This error occurred during the presentation the case to the jury. It may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether it’s admission was harmless be unoriginal doubt.

Structural errors are those defects in the trial itself which affect the framework in which the trial proceeds. Structural errors recognized in violation of some constitutional rights. They may require reversal without regard to the evidence in the particular case. Structural errors are those which affect the trial from beginning to end. For example, the absence of counsel for defendant, buys judge, then lawful exclusion of members of the defendants race, the right to self representation at trial, and the right to a public trial.

If you’re looking for the best aggressive legal representation for your criminal case, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense. He is well worth the money. Attorney Stephen Cale will fight hard for you. He will work to try to get the charge against you dismissed if possible. He is an experience trial attorney.

Structural error is not subject to analysis based on prejudice. When structural error analysis is taken the proceeding is invalid. Structural error analysis presumes prejudice. Errors in the jury selection process or structural errors. Structural errors are presumptively prejudicial. The structural error is committed, prejudice is presumed.