This content was written for Cale Law Office
Anyone who has been charged with a crime needs to call an attorney right away. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation. With attorney Stephen Cale you also get a complimentary defense strategy plan is custom-made for your case.
With the things that a defendant can do after conviction is to file for post-conviction relief. Jimmy Ray Slaughter was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed his case in 2005. Post-conviction relief is narrow in scope. The post-conviction procedure act is not designed or intended to provide defendants and another direct appeal. Instead, it provides petitioners with very limited grounds upon which to base a collateral attack on their judgments. Therefore, claims it could be raised in previous appeals but were not hard generally waived. Claims previously race on direct appeal are deemed to be actually litigated and determined. Therefore they cannot be raised.
Fairly recent revisions to the act make it more difficult for capital post-conviction defendants to avoid procedural bars. For example, only claims that were not and cannot have been raised in direct appeal be considered. Should the defendant meet this burden, then the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals shall consider the claim only if it supports the conclusion here that the outcome of the trial would’ve been different had not been for the errors or that the defendant is factually innocent, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. These amendments reflect the legislature’s intent to honor and preserve the legal principle of finality of judgment.
Under post-conviction relief, the court cannot consider the merits of the claim or grant relief was the defendant’s application sufficient specific facts establishing the current claimed initiatives and not been and cannot have been presented previously in a timely original application. In Slaughter’s case, he claimed that he was told the post-conviction relief due to newly-discovered scientific evidence available at the time the trial. He further claimed that he shows that he is innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted based on this newly discovered evidence. This alleged newly discovered evidence is called a brain fingerprinting. The defendant claimed that this evidence was not available to anyone in the world before July 1, 1999.
The petitioner presented the inventor’s affidavit indicating they conduct a brain fingerprinting testing on the defendant. At the time the inventor was passed numerous details concerning salient details of the crime scene that equates the protester’s attorney the records in the case, the perpetrator experience in the course of committing the crime for which Slaughter was convicted.
According to the inventor brain fingerprinting, the defense brings a response to that information indicated information absent. This reading, according to the inventor indicates the defendant does not have the knowledge that he salient features of the crime scene. However, brain fingerprinting was not accepted within the scientific community, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.
Application for evidentiary hearing evidence must contain sufficient information to show Court of Criminal Appeals by clear and convincing evidence that the materials of communities have or likely to have support law, in fact, to be relevant to allegation raising the application for post-conviction relief. No such factors exist in Slaughter’s case.
In his second argument, Slaughter claimed that DNA testing will provide exculpatory evidence showing his innocence. However, he offered no supporting evidence of the time of the second post-conviction application was filed. A month later he cemented his second notice to the court concerning DNA testing. Test the document he smelled a report from DNA testing company that indicated that her hair obtained the crime scene designated the Q hair from sheet submitted for analysis and was found to support the conclusion that the victims were DNA was excluded from the mixer observed. However, because Slaughter did not submit any spring DNA evidence with his original or second post-conviction application is claims related to DNA testing apart from review.
For his final claim, Slaughter challenges the board composition analysis performed during his trial. He said it was not submitted with his second application for post-conviction relief. Therefore, his application for post-conviction relief was denied.
Determining whether appellate counsel for sufficiently performed his duties, the overriding concern for the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is whether the attorney’s assistance was written reasonable considering all the circumstances. To preserve of the appeals attorneys constitutionally protected the independence and a wide latitude in making tactical decisions, however, the court will be highly deferential in scrutinizing the attorney’s performance. Therefore, the appellate court will evaluate appellate counsel’s challenged conduct counsel’s perspective of the time. It also does a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the range of possible professional assistance.Lastly, my client is coming counsel reasonably that pursuing certain investigations would be frivolous or even harmful, counsel’s failure to pursue those investigations in a UP challenge was unreasonable.
The defendant claimed that his conviction was reversed because the trial court improperly instructed the jury that he was presumed not guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a conviction on the basis of this form instruction, holding that unconstitutionally dilute the presumption of guilt is to me prison be unoriginal doubt, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. However, Walker did not challenge the present not guilty instruction on direct appeal. Therefore he waived the issue for purposes of post-conviction review unless he can demonstrate that it could not have been raised in a strict appeal.
Often times in appellate court will issue a new rule. The US Supreme Court has stated that the appellate court announces a new role when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation. There’s also new rule if it’s result was not dictated by President existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.
To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, the person is illegally restrained of his liberty. This is accomplished when it requires the release of a person detaining custody without authority law. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation.