This content was written for Cale Law Office

Every case matters to Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. If you every case terms to Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. If you’ve been charged with a crime, call the Cale Law office at 91827748002 schedule your free initial consultation. With your consultation you also get a free defense strategy plan to take with you.

On appeal defendant objected to the reduction to charge that he was acquitted of. The trial court overruled his objection, finding that the evidence of the prior acquittal could be properly admitted to support the continuing threat aggravated. The admission of acquitted conduct sentencing proceeding is permissible provided that the conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. That means that adjudicated offenses are lead to a defendant in a capital murder case may be introduced into evidence of to support the claim of future dangerousness. Defendants conviction or acquittal does not alter the basic evidentiary facts of the underlying conduct. Neither does it determine whether those facts may be offered to show his future dangerous this is a capital sentencing trial. Evidence of a defendant’s final acts is relevant and admissible to show the existence of a probability that the defendant poses a continuing threat.

The defendant argued that allowing the state to use his conduct that he was acquitted of forced him to defend himself from something that he had Artie defeated. The appellate court said that the defendant failed to recognize that his prior conduct be relied upon to prove and aggravate her, not that the conduct resulted in criminal charges. In the case and, the defendant entered a hair salon were at least five people were present. It pulled again from his waistband, pointed at one of hairdressers, and pulled the trigger. Because didn’t fire. So he struck the hairdresser in the head several times, causing her to fall.

The defendant then pointed the gun had to were people again pull the trigger. However the gun to fire. Even pointed at a woman who pleaded with him not to shoot because she was pregnant. Ignoring her pleas, a appointment can her stomach and pulled the trigger. Again, the gun did not fire. He hit the woman the head causing her to fall to the floor. The defendant eventually left the salon and was followed by customers he jumped into a nearby car and fired at the customers as they left the building.

To testify to the surrounding a 2003 incident at the hair salon. The woman told the jury that another woman was there with her at the salon it was six months pregnant. The woman described how the defendant pulled out his gun in the other woman grandkid away. The woman back the defendant not to shoot her. The defendant antagonized her. Another woman begged not to be shot because she was pregnant.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that there are some instances in which hearsay can be admitted. When alleged hearsay is admitted without objection, statements may be considered as though they are admissible. The hearsay rule applies only when an out-of-court statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The rule does not operate to make every statement repeated by witness as inadmissible. It does not exclude evidence offered to prove the fact that the statement was made or the conversation was had.

An inspector also testified at the trial. He stated that he executed a search warrant on the defendant of the county jail to obtain a bugle swab. The inspector testified that defendant resists of his intent to obtain the swab. The defendant became aggressive and additional ulcers were called in to subdue him. Inspector said that when he was able to get the defendant’s mouth open insert the swab, the defendant. The inspectors finger recognize the best Tusla crimnal defense attorney.

In one case, the DA petition the court to compel the defendant to allow the state to obtain blood, saliva, hair, seminal fluid samples from him. The prosecutor argued in its motion that certain items of evidence had been taken from the victim and were being held be examined the issue for the court was whether the examination and analysis of the defendant specimens would be probative to the prosecution. The appellate court found that at the hearing the trial court level, the state had failed to demonstrate that the samples taken from the scene of a crime in the body of the victim were viable testing samples. It also found a lack of any rational connection to the samples in the possession of the state and the specimens that they sought from the defendant.

The appeals court said that the overriding function of the fourth amendment is to protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the state. This requires a protection against and truces that are not justified under the circumstances nor made in a proper manner. If the state can show the probative value of the requested tests at an evidentiary hearing, the defendant may be subject to submitting to samples in a reasonable manner. This person should have gotten the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney involved.

In a 1982 case prosecution got a search warrant to retrieve hair, blood, and saliva samples from the defendant. The appellate court said that the affidavit articulated sufficient facts to establish probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime and that it provided the magistrate was probable cause to believe the evidence requested to be seized would be probative in the prosecution of the case. The appellate court went on to say that it found that search of the defendants body via a valid search warrant was reasonable and that the state did not violate the defendant’s fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the defendant also argued that his sixth amendment rights were violated because the prosecution did not notify his attorney that they were seeking a search warrant to obtain the bugle swab. The law does not require notice to be given before search warrant was executed.