Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Great Trial Skills | 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. Schedule your free initial consultation. Attorney Stephen Cale has great trial skills.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale gets started on his clients’ cases right away. He will first look to see whether or not the charge is even valid. That means that deceive the charge was properly worded. He’s been able to get charges dismissed because the state failed to properly word it’s charging instrument.
Additionally, attorney Cale will file discovery motions. By filing a discovery motion, the states forced to turn over evidence concerning the defendant. This includes not only incriminating evidence but also evidence that severable to the client. Attorney Cale will use this to evaluate the strength of the state’s case. You also use it as part of the strategy to get the best possible result for his client. This can include getting a case dismissed.
Conspiracy can be defined in four different ways, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. A conspiracy occurs of two or more people conspire to commit any crime.
Secondly, if two or more people falsely and maliciously indict a person for any crime or cause another to be charged with any crime, and that is a conspiracy. Thirdly if two or more people falsely maintain any suit or legal proceeding, that is considered a conspiracy. Conspiracy also occurs of the tour or more people conspire to cheat or defraud any person of any property by any criminal means. Lastly, people can be charged with conspiracy if two or more than conspire to commit any act that injures public health or public morals.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that, depending on the circumstances, conspiracy can be either a misdemeanor or felony. Except in cases where a different punishment is provided for, conspiracy is a misdemeanor unless it’s conspiracy to commit a felony. Conspiracy to commit a felony is punishable by a fine of up to $5000 or imprisonment for 10 years.
A conspiracy cannot stand agreement alone. There must be in what’s called an overt act. November to commit a felony or to commit a misdemeanor amount of conspiracy unless some act is done to affect the agreement. This must be done by one or more parties to the agreement.
The bodies omitted the woman was found in a shallow grave near Lake. The man had two fatal head wounds. He also had a fatal appears to his aorta. This person inflicted wounds to the head, throat, and torso the body. The assailant stabbed the woman in such a way that it pierced her heart. Someone killed them in a place other than where they were married.
On appeal, the defendant said that the state did not prove then you, or location, of where the crime occurred. Under the Oakland Constitution, the defendant has a right to be tried in the county in which the crime charged was committed. The defendant also has a right to speedy trial. This must be public and tried by an impartial jury. When it’s not clear in which Kelly the crime was committed, the defendant may be tried in any county in which the evidence indicates the crime I’ve been committed.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals treats then you differently from other constitutional rights when the possibility waiver is an issue. The state bears the burden to prove then you. The standard of proof is not the same as elements of the crime. This means that the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it’s merely by a preponderance of the evidence.
Then you can be established through direct or circumstantial evidence. Venue is not an element of the crime. It’s also not the same as jurisdiction. Then you can be waived, but jurisdiction cannot.
Police in this case from the victims about one block from the county line. They also found the assailants car nearby but across the county. Evidence was located in both counties. However, the evidence was so close to each other that could have occurred in any the county. This was sufficient. The defense asserted on appeal that venue is a jury question.
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to quash based on venue. However, it later withdrew its ruling. The defendant’s renewed their challenge to the new when the state rested. Because venues on an element crime, then the jury cannot determine this issue. This can only be decided by the judge.
Next, the defendant argued on appeal that he was denied a fair trial because the trial court admitted in immiscible hearsay to his detriment. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed. The judge should not admit the testimony of a co-conspirator. A statement which is offered against a party and made by a co-conspirator during the course and in the furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible. Is not considered he hearsay. However, before these statements can be admitted against the defendant, the trial court required holding a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether a conspiracy existed.
The prosecution must prove a conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court may consider the alleged hearsay statements in reaching its decision. A co-conspirator statements satisfy the requirements reliability and are admissible only if the trial court finds for things. One, it must find a conspiracy existed. Secondly, the court must determine that both the defendant in the alleged are parties to the conspiracy. Thirdly the statements must be made during the duration of the conspiracy. And lastly, the statements must of further the goals of the conspiracy.
The trial court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found that the state to prove the existence of the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence. It also said that the defendant was a party to it, however, with the prosecution sought to admit co-conspirator statements at trial, the judge failed to apply the limits of time and content that was required by law.
Instead, the judge disregarded its earlier finding that conspiracy stemmed from a two-month period. It admitted hearsay statements made a time to anyone by any person that was part of the conspiracy. As a consequence, there was a large number of hearsay statements that were admitted over the defendant’s objection.