Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Jury Master | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’re looking for a Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call one who will fight for you. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. He focuses on criminal defense and has been practicing for nearly two decades.
Prosecutors charged the defendant with first-degree murder elected to have a jury trial. They convicted him of murder and other charges. The jury sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the sentences but re-sentence the defendant to life without parole. Here are the facts.
The defendant claimed that the trial judge mistakenly denied his pretrial motion to have the jury panel voir dire it. He argued that a large number of potential jurors subject to pretrial publicity merited individual jury selection it, however, the appellate court disagreed. The court is consistently held that there is no right for an individual voir dire. Whether to grant a motion for individual voir dire is a decision that’s within the sound discretion the trial court. The was not an abuse of discretion.
First, the defendant argued that his confession was involuntary. Therefore, the trial judge should have suppressed it. He claims that the police used improper and coercive interrogation techniques to exploit his mental deficiencies. According to the defendant the police exploited his mental capability thereby coercing him to confess. The appellate court set forth the test for voluntariness.
The ultimate test of whether or not a confession is voluntary is whether it is a product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker. Confession is involuntary or coerces to the totality of the circumstances demonstrate that the confessor does not freely decide to give the statement. Under the totality of the circumstances approach, both the carriers to’s of the accused in the details of interrogation are considered.
The defendant in the testimony of a psychologist and psychiatrist concerning his mental deficiencies. The psychologist interviews the defendant to determine whether not he was competent to stand trial. He concluded that he was. During the second trial, the defense counsel asked the psychiatrist questions about her sessions with the defendant. Based on the information she obtained, she cannot offer conclusion whether he could have knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights prior to his confession.
Defense counsel also questioned the psychologist spouse, in addition, she made her ritual report. She initially concluded that the defendant was competent to stand trial. However, see determination was not final. She also mentioned that the defendant might need assistance in understanding legal terminology. After the first trial, the doctor generated a supplemental, see the report. She stated the report that the defendant had been competent stand trial batted the stipulation that he receive assistance in the area legal terminology. The psychiatrist also stated that the supplemental report that the defendant did not understand the implications of the confession when he was arrested. During the same trial she testified that she did not consider these additions to be changed in her original port, but merely detailed elaborations conclusions that she Artie reached.
The defendant claimed that this testimony is expert testimony but prone to exaggeration. The fact that he was 20 years old with a 12th-grade education, together with other things support his claim that he was incapable of getting a knowing and voluntary confession. The appellate court said that even if were defined the defense bill condition to be a significant factor as to voluntary this, the big question was whether place must conduct contribute to the confession. Consequently, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals looked at the allegations of police improperly interrogating the defendant, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.
Tulsa read the Miranda warnings to the defendant the beginning of his videotaped confession. The defendant stated that he understood his rights and agreed to talk to the police. An agent from the FBI then asked the defendant if he was giving a statement freely and voluntarily. The defendant stated the age and the place officer were present during the questioning. They each acknowledge that the videotaping did not commence until must to out hours after the defendant had entered the PlayStation.
Both of the officers also testified that during the two-year time period, they did not supply the defendant with any of permission surrounding the death of the victim other than to tell the defendant that swale also confessed and implicated him. The officers also denied ever threatening more coercing the defendant in a manner. The defendant claimed to fully appreciate the degree of the place misconduct which he was ejected. Therefore the appellate court considered three other instances of separate but in proper police behavior related to other people the case.
First, the defendant suggested that circumstances current surrounding his friend’s confession. However, the evidence supposedly supported these claims is contained in the transcript of the first trial. It was not at issue here. Because there was no evidence in the record to support these claims, the appellate court did not address them. The defendant also ported to the manner in which the police questioned a former suspect. Defendant claimed that during therefore investigative sessions, Cap’n Crunch repeatedly fed him facts about another case.
The defendants described two instances a place must conduct directed toward him after his confession. He argues that these incidents demonstrate police misconduct causing him to confess. A police captain testified that a few days after the defendant confessed, he took another person to the defendant cell to see if the defendant would identify him. While there, the officer asked the other guy if he would like to enter the defendant cell to settle the score. That person never got to enter the cell.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale is excellent on cross-examination. He loves jury trials and has been successful at them. If you want an attorney who will fight, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale is well worth the money.