This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’ve been charged with a serious crime, call the Cale Law office at 918-277-4800. Find the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney. Your initial consultation is free, you’ll also get a complimentary defense strategy plan to take with you.

One the witnesses in a murder case is likely to be a medical examiner. In one case the defendant argued that the entirety the medical examiner’s testimony was not admissible because the Medical Examiner’s Office is not a credit to. Therefore he concluded the medical examiner was unable to provide testimony pursuant to state law. He claimed that without the medical examiner’s testimony, was insufficient evidence to establish a cause of death. Additionally, the medical examiner’s testimony was used to establish the aggravating circumstance that the murders were heinous or cruel.

A board certified forensic pathologists perform the autopsies on all three the victims and testified for the stated trial. This doctor describe in detail the physical condition of all three victims. He also stated their causes of death and conclude that each death was a homicide. The doctor testified that because of the building and equipment deficiencies in high caseloads, the Medical Examiner’s Office has not been accredited since 2009. Shouldn’t you have the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney.

The defendant argued on appeal that because the Medical Examiner’s Office is not accredited, then the doctors testimony was inadmissible. Admission of evidence is within the trial court’s discretion. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action may without proper consideration of the relevant facts and law. It is also described is clearly erroneous or clearly against the logic and effect of the facts.

However the defendant did not argue his objection that the trial court level therefore the appellate court and look as to whether not the was playing error. Playing error is actual error that is planar obvious and that affects the defendant substantial rights affecting the outcome of the trial. The forensic laboratory accreditation act provides that all forensic laboratories must be accredited. That means formerly recognized by an accrediting body is meeting or exceeding applicable quality standards. Persons charged with a crime need to seek the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney.

The act also provides the testimony, results, reports, or evidence of forensics analysis that is produced on behalf of the prosecution and the criminal trial must be done by an accredited forensic laboratory. An accredited forensic laboratory is one that is operated by the state or any governmental agency that examines physical evidence in criminal matters and provides opinion testimony in court. The act specifically exempts several types of testimony, reports, results, or evidence. One is breath testing for alcohol. Second is field testing, crime scene processing, crime scene evidence collection, searches, examinations or enhancement of digital evidence. The third type is latent print examination. The fifth is evidence of marijuana identification using generally accepted methods which have been approved and accredited by forensic laboratory.

The defendant argued that the Medical Examiner’s Office conducts examinations similar to forensic analysis, produces results, prepares reports and provides testimony about the prosecution criminal trials. He said that the Medical Examiner’s Office is not within any exceptions to the accreditation rule. As a consequence the medical examiner’s testimony should not be admissible. The prosecution argued that the Medical Examiner’s Office is not subject to the accreditation requirements of the act. The state noted other specific definitions included in the act referred to accrediting bodies concerned with lavatories. The medical examiner testified that the Medical Examiner’s Office accrediting body is the national Association of medical examiners. Forensic pathologist with the Medical Examiner’s Office investigate deaths by physically examining bodies, performing autopsies, and issuing reports with an opinion on the cause and manner of death. The medical examiner should reasonably expect autopsy reports be used in the criminal prosecution. The daughter in the boss case testified that she examine the bodies, and sent blood samples from the victims to the toxicology laboratory for analysis. Because laboratory test can constitute an additional toll she used to return conclusion, then this was an aide to her.

The appellate court found that whether the medical examiner’s office is subject to accreditation provisions of the act is not determine whether testimony is admissible. The Medical Examiner’s Office is required to investigate because a manner of violent deaths. This includes a physical examination of the body of the deceased, collection of physical specimens from the body, review of medical records, evidence, photographs of the scene of death, and objects or writings of the body. For every investigation, investigators in the medical examiner must prepare written reports including an autopsy report. This report must be furnished to the investigating agencies.

When interpreting statutory provisions, the primary concern is to give effect to the legislature’s intent. The appellate court will consider the plain and ordinary language of statute, other statutes of only the same or similar subjects, and the natural or absurd consequences of any particular interpretation. The court will try to reconcile the language general statutes with more specific statutory provisions to give effect to each. Specific statutory language controls over general language.

The Court of Criminal Appeals and the boss case concluded that accreditation of the Medical Examiner’s Office goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Therefore jurors may give one of her weight they fill appropriate concerning the fact that the medicals examiner’s office is not accredited. Bosse also argued that the prosecution encased in misconduct. Both the prosecution and the defense have a wide latitude in closing argument to argue the evidence and reasonable inferences from it. The appellate court will not grant relief for improper argument less the statements render the trial fundamentally unfair so that the jury’s verdicts are unreliable. This is an instance in which the defendant should have had the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney.

Boss argued three separate errors. First he argued that the prosecutor improperly commented on his lack of remorse for the crimes. A detective testified that during his interview boss had an unusual reaction when asked if he was sad about the victims deaths. In closing the prosecution argued that bosses initial reaction was not normal. It was a long calm silence. In the second closing, the prosecutor argued that there was some kind of emotional connection missing from bosses statement. He further argued that one would expect if Bosse had not commit a crime that would be a little bit upset by the deaths The appellate court said that these are not comments from bosses lack of remorse. Instead, they are reasonable inferences from which evidence of the defendant’s reaction to the news victims deaths.