Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Murder Charge Defender | 918-277-4800
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’ve been charged with a felony, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. Attorney Cale also develops a free defense strategy plan document for you. Attorney Stephen Cale has early two decades of experience and focuses his practice on criminal defense.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with first-degree murder. He shot and killed two people outside an apartment in Tulsa. The jury sentenced him to a total of 30 years in prison. The defendant appealed. Here’s a summary the facts.

The defendant contended he was denied a constitutional right to present a complete defense. He argued that the judge kept him from presenting codefendants accounts of the homicides. That codefendant had invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The defendant’s right to present relevant evidence can be limited to reasonable restrictions. The defendant does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise in immiscible understands the rules of evidence.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized the meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense does not include the right to compel a witness to give incriminating evidence. The defendant argued that the co-conspirator should be allowed to testify. He asserted that testimony would not have tended to subject her to criminal prosecution.

The U. S. Supreme Court has always broadly construed the protection of the Fifth Amendment, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The privilege applies to anyone called as a witness, not just to the accused. The privilege against self-incrimination is not confined to answers that would directly incriminate witness. It also extends to any incriminating consequences which would flow from compelled disclosure. Does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction. But, but it includes information that would furnace a link in the chain of evidence.

The central Standifer privilege of his been whether the person asserting it is confronted by substantial real chance of incrimination. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The witness was confirmed by substantial role hazard of incriminating herself as an accessory. The prosecutor process specifically mentions this offense we sought to protect the witnesses rights of a pretrial hearing.

The witness would incriminate himself issue militia driven the defendant away from the scene. She likely also would have incriminated yourself in supplying a link in the chain of evidence. Lewis acknowledged that the defendant shot and killed the two people without provocation. This will tend to sell us an element of the offense of accessory to a felony. That means that she had known that the offender had committed a crime constituting an underlying felony.

The privilege can self-incrimination extends to both direct incrimination as well as information that would first a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to charges. The witnesses pre-was extended to protect her from testifying about any portion of the day’s events. Therefore, the trial court did not occur when allowed the witness to invoke her privilege can self-incrimination.

Secondly, the defendant argued that the trial court should have granted the witness immunity in exchange for testimony. In order for a person to have immunity for testifying, he must have testified in an agreement may with the prosecuting attorney. This agreement must be approved by the court. Alternatively, he must have a claim of privilege of silence was have must have been denied by the court.

The defendant contended that provide immunity to the only state’s witness would violate the equal protection clause. However, these failed to the claim is a separate proposition is brief. Therefore the argument will not be counted.

Defendant also argued that the witnesses out-of-court statement should be admitted. Whether the defendant is not a right to present defense awfully turns on whether the evidence at issue was immiscible. The appellate court will review trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion.

The city discloses a summary of the witnesses out-of-court statements to the defendant. Some of the notes that the prosecutor had taken wall meeting with the witness. After the witness of voter privilege can self-incrimination, she became unavailable as a witness at trial. Therefore, the defendant sought to introduce the summary understatement is penal interest exception to the hearsay rule. The defendant requested that a portion of the summary be read to the jury. Alternatively, he said that the mission of the document should be admitted as an exhibit. The trial court denied his request.

The defendant contended that the document as an exhibit. However, the defendant did not show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying admission of this document. Further, the defendant did not show that the document was immiscible.

Statements within the document constituted hearsay within hearsay. Hearsay is a statement made by someone else is not testify in court. Generally, hearsay cannot be admitted. Hearsay within hearsay is only immiscible if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule.

In this case, the defendant only showed that one part of the combined statements made an exception to the hearsay rule. Once his statement fell within the statement is penal interest exception. Hearsay testimony is admissible the declarant is unavailable. The statement must be made to the detriment of the maker. Same is must also tend to expose the declarant to criminal liability.

If you or anyone else’s been charged with a serious felony crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense. He will give you aggressive legal representation. Attorney Cale has handled numerous jury trials. Some of his trials included representing people charged with murder.

Attorney Stephen Cale will sit down with you and develop a defense strategy. This is an outline of the work you will do for you to get the best possible result that you want. It will have you navigate through the legal system. It will also show you what to expect.