Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Jury Trial Lawyer | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for an experienced lawyer for your criminal case, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of experience. He focuses his practice on criminal defense.

Evidence that there’s persuasive assurance of trustworthiness may not be excluded based on a mechanistic application of the rules of evidence. There is no indication that the mission of the witness statements from summary with created a reasonable doubt. The Oakland Court of Criminal Appeals has long upheld the giving of instruction concerning flight. This is especially slow when the defendant pleads self-defense or justifiable homicide. It also applies when the defendant testifies at trial explaining his departure.

The defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot either the people. He said he merely reacted to one witnesses actions toward him. He admitted they had departed the scene. But, he disputed the search that he fled because he was guilty. Instead, he claimed that he panicked. Therefore of the circumstances, the judge properly admitted the flight construction.

The defendant also argued that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of the fair trial. The prosecutor’s comments are just the context of the entire record. Allegations a prosecutorial misconduct do not warrant reversal unless they deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The defendant argued that the prosecutor engaged witness intimidation. However, the record did not support this claim.

A trial judge cannot substantially interfere with a defense witness’s decision to testify, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue. In one case the trial judge made threatening marks a defense witness. This effectively drove that witness off the stand. As a consequence, the judge’s actions to pry the defendant of due process of law and his right to present witnesses.

If the prosecutor threatens a defense witness with future charges by virtue of his testimony, this is not proper this is especially true when the witness refuses to testify. In this instance, the prosecutor’s actions deprive the defendant of a right to present witnesses. Consequently, the court must reverse his conviction. But the mere warning of the consequences of testifying does not demand reversal.

The judge did not stop awarding the witness of his right to refuse to testify. Instead, he singled out the defendant’s sole witness. He also threatened the witness with the prosecution in a high sentence for perjury if he testified. He also advises defense attorney that he should let the witness declined to testify. This was improper for the trial judge to do. Just recently, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has distinguished between the improper warning concerning the consequences of testifying.

To determine if the government has improperly interfered with a witnesses decisions testify, the court will determine whether not the interference was substantial. Differences substantial when the government actor actively discourages a witness from testifying through threats of prosecution, intimidation, or coerce of badgering. The potential was unconstitutional coercion significantly diminishes that the defendant’s witnesses select not to testify after consulting an independent attorney. The court found this rationale to be persuasive.

In certain circumstances, the prosecutor may have an ethical duty to see that a witnesses advice concerning his or her privilege can self-incrimination. This will also extend to the possible need for counsel. At the same time, the prosecutor is prohibited from calling a witness who the prosecutor knows will claim a valid privilege not to testify. The proper procedure neither the circumstances is for the prosecutor to seek to make a record outside the presence of the jury. An independent attorney is a cornerstone of our judicial system.

The court can assume that after consultation with competent counsel, individual knowingly and freely exercise their rights. The court will presume that the defendant knowingly and intelligently entered a plea where the plea entered upon the advice of, counsel. In the present case, the prosecutor did not substantially appear with the witnesses decisions testify. Neither prosecutor nor the trial judge actively discouraged the witness from testifying. Even though the prosecutor advised the judge, defense counsel, and the witness that he was potentially faced criminal charges, there was no threat.

The defendant also claimed on appeal that the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence during closing argument. The prosecution may not argue facts outside the record during closing argument. But the prosecution of the defense or right to fully discuss the evidence from their standpoint said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. This includes the reasonable inferences and deductions from the evidence. The defendant argued that there was no evidence in a trial to’s chest they kill people execution style.

However, the appellate court found that the defendant ignored uncontroverted evidence they show both victims and the had a close range. The evidence to suggest that the defendant shot one of them through the year. He also sought the other while he was laying on the ground. These were all done a close range.

Third, the defendant argued that the prosecutor injected her personal opinion concerning the credibility of the defense testimony. She commented on the defendant’s demeanor of the witness stand. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that it’s not proper for the prosecutor to state her personal opinion concerning the defendant’s guilt. In this case, the appellate court determined that the prosecutor statements were proper.

It also contended prosecutor improperly garnered sympathy for the victims. Blaine appeals to sympathy, sentiment, or prejudice or not proper. Prosperous comments, in this case, responded to a defense counsel’s request that jurors be compassionate, considerate and show mercy and understanding. Even though the prosecutor’s comments bordered on impropriety, defense counsel’s arguments invited them. The prosecutor’s comment that will case was important to the people who cannot speak or seek justice for themselves bordered on impropriety. Comments that do no more than respond in order to write the scale did not warrant reversing a conviction.

Additionally, the defendant argued that the prosecutor misstated the log during closing argument when she told them that they cannot consider the defendant’s age. She also said they cannot have sympathy for his family when determining the issue of punishment. Prosecution on the state the law includes government. The stamens a law which nominalist we the jury did not require relief. The prosecutor’s comments were inarticulate, the did not rise to the level plain error. The trial court gave instruction to not let sympathy or sentiment enter into their deliberations.

When the appellate court reviewed the entire record, determined that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s comments do not deprive the defendant a fair trial. The evidence against the defendant was strong. The circumstances of the crime drove his sentences. Therefore the prosecutor’s conduct did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.