Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | You Need Him | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with Tulsa criminal defense lawyer Stephen Cale. At the Cale law office, he also gets a free defense strategy plan document.
The defendant also argued that was denied a fair trial because the trial court noted this scope of his discovery. He also said that the state failed to comply with the trial court’s discovery orders in violation of the law. Requested an evidentiary hearing to determine if any evidence was wrongfully withheld.
He argued that the trial court improperly restrictive discovery to only those items which have been delivered to the district attorney’s office. Defendant claimed that effective discovery cut off been frustrated by withholding evidence from the district attorney. He argued this restriction was improperly placed on the following items. The trial court held a link the hearing with regard to the discovery request initially, defense attorneys requested copies of everything the prosecution’s file. The trial court denied his pride requested required canceled make a specific class.
the trial court included the scope of discovery. In noting that the district attorney has an obligation to find out she has all the necessary information. However, the trial court did not require the DA to ask every possible officer who worked on the case, just as a command it would know who worked on the case.
The defendant complained it was not provided the investigator’s notes. The record shows that the defendant was provided with notes taken during interviews with of the codefendants. At trial, the muscular testified that he produced all of his reports, but not all of his notes. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals declined to extend discovery to include the prosecution witnesses work papers. This is consistent with prior holies that the states the required to produce notes law enforcement officers go such notes constitute work product. The High Court continues to uphold the work product exception to the discoverable material.
The defendant also argued that it was not provided the names of officers who ministered his Miranda rights. The trial court granted his request for such information, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale the prosecutor said that the only officers who advised the defendant of his rights were an agent of the detective. The defendant received a copy of the waiver of rights he signed. The waiver stated that the biscuit advised him of his Miranda rights. A witness signed the document. Therefore, the state complied with the court’s order.
The defendant also argued that the police denied him the reports and notes. The trial court of the DAs office agreed that the defendant was entitled to police reports and notes in their possession. The trial court did not require the place to produce their work product notes.
The DAs office did not provide the defendant with results of a field test. The court granted defendant’s request for this information. At the motion hearing, the prosecutor devised that he was not aware of any field has been conducted. There is no evidence that such tests have been done.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that when discovery violations occur, the trial court must fashion the appropriate relief. The record, in this case, shows that the defendant was given a copy of the official statement in a motion hearing. However, during the trial, the officer testified he gave a statement to another investigator as well. The prosecution said it rechecked its files cannot locate the statements. The defendant did not object to the testimony of Peter those two. Now on appeal, he claims over the trial court discovery violation.
The defendant also argued that he was denied a fair trial because the trial court refused to provide funds for negligible testing a private investigator. The defendant filed a motion for funds to contact a psychological evaluation. In his motion, he stated that he had a history of medical seizures. His argument was that he suffered from a brain disease or mental illness. After hearing his argument on the motion, the court decided that a competency by which would be appropriate. The court granted the motion for psychological evaluation. Specifically, the court ordered mental health hospital the doctors to answer the standard, see questions in the report.
There are series of standard competency questions. One of them is whether the person is able to appreciate the nature of the charges against him. The second determination is whether the person is able to consult with his lawyer and rationally assist in the preparation of his defense. If the answer to the first or second question is no, then the next determination is whether the person can attain competency with an original time and provide with the course of treatment, therapy or training. Lastly, the question is whether the person is mentally ill or a person requires treatment is defined by statute. If a person is released without treatment, therapy or training, must it be a determination whether you pose a threat to society.
A clinical psychologist concluded that the defendant was mildly retarded. Is a low level of intellectual functioning and probably suffered from organic brain damage. The court held another competency hearing to review the report and here witnesses. The trial court admitted the report finding that the defendant was competent to stand trial. On cross-examination, the psychologist testified their records do not reflect a psychiatric examination have been done. The statute said that everyone is seen by psychiatrist upon omission.
She testified she believed the doctor was at the hospital and that the defendant medication for his seizures. Doctor testifies she saw no need to run a psychological evaluation of the comps the screening test ordered by the court. The defendant renewed his motion for psychological testing because the hospital did not conduct a complete psychological evaluation to determine whether there was the opportunity to have a defense in this case.
If you want aggressive legal representation to defy criminal charges against you, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. Attorney Stephen Cale is the best choice for a criminal defense attorney.