This content was written for Cale Law Office

No criminal charge is too serious for Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. If you’ve been charged with a crime, call the Cale Law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. Credit and debit cards are accepted.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals must construe the U.S. Constitution based on existing precedent from the US Supreme Court. The appellant didn’t invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent or full invoke his fourth amendment right to refuse consent to search. Instead he voluntarily spoke with officers and indicated that he would cooperate with the investigation. He refused to allow officers to conduct a full search was track but did agreed to a search of the contents of his vehicle as well as photographing the contents. Investigators took pictures of several items that were important in the investigation of the case. When the officer searched his truck pursuant to the search warrant, most of the items gone. At trial the prosecution introduced the defendant’s voluntary statement indicating they would cooperate with investigators. The statement also indicated that he allowed photographs of the strokes contents.

The US Supreme Court has distinguish between solid occurs after I Miranda warning from silence before such a warning. The Supreme Court has determined that due process prohibits prosecutors from using a defendant silent the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings for impeachment purposes a trial. However the Supreme Court has determined that this role does not apply to suspects prearrest silence prior to the receipt of any Miranda warnings.

The prosecutor may use evidence of a suspects statement to the police as well as prearrest silence. Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment. In the Salinas case the Supreme Court determined that a prosecution’s use of a criminal suspects noncustodial silence did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the suspect had not previously or expressly vote privilege against self-incrimination. The Salinas case was a program plurality opinion. In that case the suspect and voluntarily gone to the police station answered officers questions. However he balked became silent when the officer asked whether shotgun would match the shells recovered at Mercy. The Supreme Court determined that the suspect silence did not constitute invocation of the right not to incriminate oneself. The boss case the defendant was not custody but voluntarily traveled to the Sheriff’s office and answered the investigators questions. He did not receive a Miranda warning. He also never expressly vote his Fifth Amendment right. Therefore’s the opinion of some that the prosecution’s use of the defendant statements to investigators did not by the Fifth Amendment. The US Supreme Court has discussed the issue as to what constitutes a penalty for the exercise of a constitutional right. Undoubtedly an individual may not be criminally prosecuted for the mere refusal to consent to a warrantless search. However evidence of the assertion of a constitutional right does not constitute a penalty in all instances. The US Supreme Court has recognized that the Fifth Amendment prohibition on the prosecution on the cues refusal to testify or jury instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt.

The Supreme Court has reason that comment on the refusal to testify is reminiscent set of the Inquisition system of criminal justice. It’s a penalty imposed by the courts for exercising a constitutional privilege. It cuts down on the privilege by making its assertion costly. On the other hand, and Prince of guilt filler to testify as to facts that are within the cues knowledge is an event natural and irresistible. Therefore that comment on failure does not magnify that inference into a penalty for asserting a constitutional privilege in one person’s opinion. Prosecutorial comments about it defendant’s refusal to consent to search which then gives way to to the refusal as substantive evidence of guilt are prohibited.

However evidence concerning the refusal self may be permissible if the testimony submitted is a fair response to the claim by the defendant or for some other purpose. Because the defendant refused consent to a full search of his truck that it should became central to the chain of them evidence and help explain officer subsequent actions as well as the challenge evidence. Therefore the evidence was admissible. Evidence central to the chain of events is admissible. The evidence under attack helped explain why officers took photographs but were unable to seize the initial items. As such the evidence concerning these events was admissible.

Some of the prosecutor’s comments crossed the line, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. However they were comments which surrounded the defendant’s refusal to consent to the full search of his truck. Further, the prosecutor’s comments were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of the defendant’s guilt was strong. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the prohibition on characterizations and opinions from a victim’s family members about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence remains the law. Judges strive to correctly apply the law. However it can be difficult when clear directive is not given from the highest court, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The defendant who is facing the death penalty has the right to put on testimony from his friends and family that his life has value to them. Additionally they can testify with request to spare his life.

The jury found three aggravating circumstances. One was that the defendant was previously convicted of a felony that involve the use of violence upon the person. Secondly the jury found that the murder was especially heinous. Third, the existence the fact that the defendant probably would commit other since the defendant to 25 years.

On counts two and three the jury recommended imprisonment for 25 years. Is one that must be served after another sentence is completed. The trial court sentenced the defendant in accordance with the jury’s sentencing.  He ordered the sentences to run consecutively, not concurrently. Sentences that are concurrent are served at the same time, not one after the other.