This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a crime you want the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney. Call the Cale Law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. With your free initial consultation, you also get a free defense strategy plan to take with you.
Bosse’s Second argument dealt with the exercise of the fourth amendment right to refuse consent to search. He argued that the prosecution’s use of his fourth amendment right to refuse to consent to a warrantless search of his car raised an impermissible inference as to his guilt, thus depriving him of due process and a fair trial. The appellate court notice that boss voluntarily talk to police on July 23. Investigators has to searches truck but he refused. He did let them take photographs of its contents however. They saw a laptop, DVD case, video games, and a video game console the front backseats. A relative of the deceased identify the laptop and other items in the photos as belonging to the decedent. In OSB I went to Bosse’s apartment later that night and asked again to searches truck. This time was consented.
At the trial, bosses conversation with police was amended along with the photographs of inside the truck. The results of what was obtained from the later search given by consent also was amended. The trial court allowed two witnesses to testify verbose initially refused to let officer searches truck. Prosecutors argue that they could comment on that refusal because he was hiding evidence. They argued that his refusal was substantial evidence of his guilt. Bosse claims a commission of this evidence for this purpose was erroneous. However because he did not object the remarks an argument, he waived all but plain error for those claims.
As Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale explains, the fourth amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Anyone has the right to refuse consent to search and to require law enforcement to get a warrant before conducting a search. There is nobody law whether a prosecutor violates a defendant’s constitutional right by using his refusal to consent as substantive evidence of his guilt. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found in bosses case that the prosecutor scared and arguing as substantive evidence of guilt that the defendant exercises constitutional rights. This includes refusing to give a written consent to police and consulting attorneys when one is under investigation for a crime.
Whether or not evidence is admitted is within the trial court’s discretion. Bosse argued that a person should not be penalized for exercising a constitutional right. The US Supreme Court has discussed that a person may refuse an officer’s requests without fear prosecution when that person exercises his constitutional rights. Several to a search is not admissible as substitute evidence of guilt. For example, one federal court held that the exercise of constitutional right, whether to refuse to consent to search, refused to waive Miranda rights, or to decline to testify at trial, is not evidence of guilt.
A divided Supreme Court is held that during noncustodial police questioning whether is no Miranda warnings given, a defendant must expressly invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court in that case found that the defendant’s interview was noncustodial and voluntary. Therefore statements were outside the scope of Miranda, not coerced, he was free to voluntarily explicitly state that you refuse to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds but failed to do so. That case focuses on when, whether, and how a defendant must claim his Fifth Amendment right to silence during noncustodial questioning.
Most constitutional errors occurring during trial are subject to the harmless error test. Therefore they may be assessed along with the evidence presented for any prejudice to the defendant. The boss case the state presented forensic evidence and testimony supporting the verdict. Therefore under the circumstances of the case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found the any error in the use of this evidence to infer guilt was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court assumed without deciding on the issue the defendant’s exercise of his fourth amendment right to refuse consent to search may not be used as substantive evidence of guilt.
Bosse next argued concerning the omission of visual aids to testimony. He argued that admission of hearsay evidence was erroneous and deprived him of a fair trial. A DNA analyst testify regarding her analysis of DNA samples from Boston all three victims. She prepared two tables illustrating the genetic profiles from the four subjects and items of evidence she tested. These were amended of the defendants objections that they working relative. He argues that the omission was error because exhibits were admissible hearsay. This is an example of why people charged with a sex crime need the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney.
However, because Boston on object to these exhibits on the grounds at trial waived on the plain error. The appellate court said that because he failed to show any actual error that is planar obvious, and that did not affect his substantial rides affecting the outcome of the trial, then the error was harmless he characterized the exhibits as investigative reports by police and other law enforcement personnel which are not admissible. The appellate court disagreed, however this is because the tables consisted of numbers from the analyst tests without results or conclusions. They were not investigative reports.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that boss next argued that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the victims family members to remain in the court room over his objection. He said that this violated his rights to due process and a fair and impartial trial. The victim’s mother and her stepmother testify from the state. Over bosses objection both women were allowed to remain in the courtroom throughout the trial. Bosse invoked the rule of sequestration. This role allows a party to order the exclusion witnesses from the courtroom so they cannot hear testimony of other witnesses. The state may ask that persons who are victims of the crime, or the representatives, parents or relatives, be exempted from this exclusion. The decision whether to include are exempt witnesses from the real sequestration is within the trial court’s discretion. The roles intended to guard against the possibility that a witnesses testimony might be tainted or manipulated by hearing other witnesses. The victim’s mother was completely exempted from this role. The stepmother was exempted after testimony in the first aged concluded.