Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Five-Star Rated | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’re looking for an aggressive criminal defense attorney, call the Cale Law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. You’ll also get a free defense strategy plan.
The defendant argued that he was prejudiced at trial when his trial is joined with the others. He claimed the severance was required to avoid the extreme prejudice he suffered by the introduction of codefendants redacted confession. He contended that the introduction of the incriminating statements violated his right to confront witnesses against him. For the state is constituted and immiscible hearsay.
The state argued that severance was not required because the defenses of the two other co-defendants were not mutually antagonistic. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale sets that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently held that decision to grant or deny severance is left to the trial court’s discretion. Without an abuse of discretion that results in prejudice to the defendant, the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently held that severance is required of the defenses are mutually antagonistic. Defenses are mutually antagonistic when each defendant attempts to exonerate himself and point the finger at his codefendant. Attempt cast blame on a codefendant is not in itself sufficient reason to require separate trials. Each defendant must blame the other in an attempt to exonerate himself. Therefore, showing the defense conflict is not enough to require severance of the trial.
The record showed that the prosecution introduced both codefendant statements through an investigator. Neither the co-defendants took the witness stand. He also did not present any witnesses or evidence on your behalf. The high court said that when viewed entirely, testimony reveals of the two were not antagonistic. In one the man statements he admitted to planning to rob the store. He claimed he went back to to the store where the plan was working on the truck. He points his gun that the employee and ordered him into the pickup. He went back to the front of the store and grabbed a box of car speakers and some to the core. This was a consistent statement, not one that was antagonistic.
Men city went into the store and approached the front counter as if you’re going to buy something. After the cash register drawer open, he robbed the owner, the defendant claimed that the owner went for a gun. So, the defendant shot in. The only consistency between the two statements related to their participation in earlier robbery and shooting in Muskogee.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that severance may also be required if the DA intends to introduce during a joint trial the defendant’s confession which puts blame on his codefendant. The purpose of a severance in a case like this is to prevent the introduction of directly incriminating evidence without confrontation of the adverse party, which were in violation of the not confessing codefendant sixth amendment rights. This company or can be produced when this confession is instigated by the prosecution.
While incriminating statements not been admitted, the appellate court must next determine whether the error was harmless. The appellate court is continually held that when the sky confrontation violation exists, the defendant still demonstrated that the error was prejudicial. When the probably minute evidence is so overwhelming that the prejudicial effect of the statement is insignificant, the admission the confession is harmless.
In the case at hand, the probably minute evidence against him and was overwhelming severe. It rendered any prejudicial effect to the statement insignificant. The boy identified the man as the man of the gun at his head. When the man was arrested shortly after the robbery, police found items from the store and his apartment. The apartment owner testified that the two men working a box speakers and car to the core when I arrived at her apartment. She also testified that one minister to hide a bag containing two guns.
He also asked her to hide some money with the place knocked on the door. Several witnesses placed the two men matching the description of them at the store at the time of the robbery. One man’s fingerprints were found in the stolen getaway car. The man testified that he saw the defendant in the stolen getaway car driving erratically.
Also, defendant confessed. While the mission of the company portions of substance was an error, this was not too bad of an error. Thus it is not required reversal. It was abundantly clear be unoriginal doubt that the improper use of the statement did not contribute to the verdict.
When you hire Tulsa criminal defense lawyer Stephen Cale, he gets excellent service. He tells exactly what the strategy is to get the best possible result for you. He first starts by looking at whether not the charge is valid. He has been many cases in which he got charges dismissed because was a properly filed.
Next, he will file discovery motion this is a type a motion that forces the prosecution to turn over evidence. The light is the DA if you turn over evidence that the incriminating, but also to turn over evidence that’s favorable to the defendant. This is one the first things that attorney Cale files.
Attorney Stephen Cale is always looking for a way to get a case dismissed. In felony cases when things he does is request a dismissal the in the preliminary hearing. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether not there sufficient evidence that a crime was committed, and enough evidence to believe that the defendant committed the crime.
At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Tulsa criminal defense lawyer Stephen Cale always asked the court to dismiss the case. If the judge denies the request, he will file a formal demurrer complete with legal cases, and a transcript of the proceedings. This is a formal, written way to seek a dismissal.