Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Trusted Advocate | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for a Tulsa criminal defense attorney, you need one that you can trust. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years. Plus, he focuses his practice on criminal defense. Attorney Cale is a lawyer that you can trust.

The district attorney filed charges against the defendant alleging robbery with a firearm and shooting with intent to kill. The jury sentenced him to 50 years in prison. Here’s a summary the facts of the case.

Early morning, the defendant stopped a woman was a manager of a grocery store department. As to where he could find a particular manager. That person directed him to the lounge area in the back of the store. When the defendant entered the lounge area he asked for the manager. The defendant produced a revolver from his pocket when the manager identified himself.

The defendant told the manager to put money in a sack that defendant was holding. As he walked toward the officers, the defendant told the manager that they would leave in the matters car. After entering the office, the defendant told that to keep her to fill his bag with folding money only. The bookkeeper permitting the sack from the vault heard you’re, the cash register trays, the trees fell to the floor. The defendant demanded the money on the desk that the bookkeeper had been counting. The defendant mumbled a curse word in point his gun at the bookkeeper.

The bookkeeper had a small pistol in his back pocket. He drew from his pocket and pointed at the defendant. A struggle ensued that resulted in the bookkeeper’s constant discharging the ceiling. The defense can fire into the bookkeeper. The defendant took the bag of money and fled from the store. The workers of the store identified the defendant at trial as the robber.

The defendant testified at trial. He said he was a four-time convicted felon and was in Tulsa the day after the robbery. He denied committing the robbery. The defendant’s companion testified that he and the defendant left the city returned well now where. They stopped in Tulsa later that afternoon. This was his alibi witness.

On appeal, the defendant contended that the trial court mistakenly refused to allow a witness to testify to the conversation concerning hearsay statements a man identified. This Miller Leslie claimed they had been casing the cursor store as a possible source of money to buy drugs. Defense counsel could not find this witness. The trial court judge has discretion as to whether or not to admit evidence, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals will not reverse a conviction.

Hearsay testimony is admissible if: 1) the declarant is unavailable; 2) the statement made was adverse to the declarant’s penal interest; 3) the statement tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability and is offered to exculpate the accused; and 4) corroborate circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to establish any of the criteria required for the admissibility of this rule. The witness gave testimony as to who this person was or why he was unavailable. Also, nobody testified to efforts to locate him.

Secondly, the defendant argued on appeal that the trial court should have given instruction related to the law on alibi. The defense attorney did not object to this instruction at the time it was given. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the burden of proof does not shift to the defendant for an alibi defense. Although the defendant must show for an alibi defense is that state of facts creates regional doubt of his presence of the time the place where the crime was committed.

Thirdly, the defendant contended that the prosecutor toil comments to private him of a fair trial. On one of those remarks made it into the record by an objection. There were no other objections to those comments. It was there any request for the judge Thomas the jury regarding them. Therefore, the defendant waived all errors that were not fundamental in nature.

When a defendant opens up the field of inquiry on direct examination, he cannot complain of later cross-examination of the same subject. The defendant alleges that the prosecutor made improper statements during cross-examination. However, the stamens were in response to defense questions. Defendant also said that the judge should of Kevin a cautionary instruction regarding eyewitness testimony. The judge instructed the jury that they were able to assess the credibility of the witness in light of the witness’s ability to remember relay past occurrences.

A jury can also take into consideration the witnesses means of observation an opportunity to know the matter about which the witness testified. Their sufficient evidence to cover the eyewitness testimony is the facts of the case. The defendant also asserted that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if there were promises of leniency to the witnesses. The U. S. Supreme Court has addressed the issue of disclosure of plea agreement to other witnesses.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that a U. S. Supreme Court case established a three-pronged test to determine whether the prosecution denied the defendant due process of law by failing to disclose a plea agreement between the state and the witness. In this case, the witness testified that he had a plea agreement with the state. The defense counsel had the opportunity at the time to inquire further as to the terms of these agreements.

The defendant also argued that his attorney was not effective. The standard for your review for ineffective assistance of counsel has two parts. First, the defendant must show that the attorney’s performance was sufficient. Secondly, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. There’s a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional conduct. That means the defendant must overcome the presumption that counsel’s conduct constituted a sound trial strategy.