Search Engine Blog Blog Search Engine Yahoo Verification Oklahoma Criminal Defense: August 2006

Commission Study Calls for End to Isolation & Release to Streets After Solitary Confinement - Mentally Ill Warehoused in Solitary Confinement -

Commission to Study Treatment of Inmates
Presents Findings to Senate Subcommittee
June 8, 2006

A group that conducted a yearlong study of the treatment of inmates in U.S. prisons called Wednesday for an end to some forms of severe isolation and a halt to releasing prisoners directly to the streets after long terms in solitary confinement.

A report by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons said the use of solitary confinement is on the rise in the USA, where 2.2 million inmates are incarcerated.
From 1995 to 2000, the number of offenders assigned to solitary confinement increased by 40%, surpassing the 28% rise in overall prison population growth, according to the group.
The commission also said 300,000 to 400,000 mentally ill offenders suffer from disease and neglect.

The group, which took testimony from prisoner advocates and corrections officials in several states over a yearlong period, will present its findings today to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The Vera Institute of Justice, a group that advocates for prisoner rights, initiated and organized the study. Vera also provided staff.

"If there was ever a time when the public consequences of confinement did not matter, that time is long gone," the report concluded.

Among the findings:

*State prison homicides have declined dramatically since 1980, from 54 murders per 100,000 prisoners to four murders per 100,000 prisoners in 2002.
Data on some other forms of violence are not reliable, the commission said.
"Perhaps the biggest blind spot," the report said, is that "there are no national measures of physical violence and excessive use of force by staff against prisoners, including the inappropriate use of restraints and non-lethal weapons."
*Prisons and jails are ill-equipped to provide proper care to up to 400,000 offenders suffering from mental illness.
Nicholas Katzenbach, co-chairman of the commission and former attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson, said the number of mentally ill prisoners was "particularly shocking."
"The need for mental health care is enormous," the report said.
Former Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction director Reginald Wilkinson said in the report that prisons have become "the new asylums."
*Most prisons are isolated from meaningful public accountability.
"Most correctional facilities are surrounded by more than physical walls," the report said. "They are walled off from external monitoring and public scrutiny to a degree inconsistent with the responsibility of public institutions."

Milgram Experiment - Obediance to Authority by Ordinary Americans Even if Violates "Morality"

Milgram Death Shock Experiment - Obediance to Authority
Even if Violates "Morality"

67.5 percent (27 out of 40) of experimental participants administered the experiment's final fatal - death shock of 450-volts, though many were quite uncomfortable in doing so; everyone paused at some point and questioned the experiment, but then never-the-less complied.
The Milgram experiment (Date: 1961)(Obedience to Authority Study) was a famous scientific experiment of social psychology. The experiment was first described by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, in an article titled Behavioral Study of Obedience. The article was published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology in 1963 and later discussed at book length in his 1974 Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. It was intended to measure the willingness of a participant to obey an authority who instructs the participant to do something that may conflict with the participant's personal conscience.

Subjects were recruited for the Yale study through newspaper ads and direct mail. The experiments occurred in two rooms in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall on the university's Old Campus. The experiment was advertised as lasting one hour, for which the respondents would be paid $4.50 (approximately $18.71 in 2006). The participants were men between the ages of 20 and 50, from all educational backgrounds, ranging from an elementary school dropout to participants with doctoral degrees.

The participant and a confederate of the experimenter, who was an actor pretending to be another participant, were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment to test the effects of punishment on learning.

A slip of paper was then given to the participant and another to the confederate. The participant was led to believe that one of the slips said "learner" and the other said "teacher," and that the participants had been given the slips randomly. In fact, both slips said "teacher," but the actor claimed to have the slip that read "learner," thus guaranteeing that the participant was always the "teacher." At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.

The "teacher" was given a 45-volt electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read 4 possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the learner would receive a shock, with the voltage increasing with each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher read the next word pair.
The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, the learner gave no further responses to questions and no further complaints.

At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.

If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:
Please continue.
The experiment requires you to continue, please go on.
It is essential that you continue.
You have no choice, you must continue.
If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.

Before the experiment was conducted Milgram polled fellow psychologists as to what the results would be. They unanimously believed that only a sadistic few (0.1%), would be prepared to give the maximum voltage. In Milgram's first set of experiments, 67.5 percent (27 out of 40) of experimental participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were quite uncomfortable in doing so; everyone paused at some point and questioned the experiment, some even saying they would return the check for the money they were paid. No participant steadfastly refused to give further shocks before the 300-volt level.
Variants of the experiment were later performed by Milgram himself and other psychologists around the world with similar results. Apart from confirming the original results the variations have tested variables in the experimental setup.
Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland Baltimore County (who is also the author of a biography of Milgram, called The Man who Shocked the World) performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, between 61% and 66%, regardless of time or location (a popular account of Blass' results was published in Psychology Today, March/April 2002). The full results were published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology (Blass, 1999).

The experiments also raised criticism of a more emotional nature, which have more to do with the implications of the experiments than the ethicality of the setup. A participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale writes in Jewish Currents about his early withdrawal as a "teacher", suspicious "that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period". See:

Positive Thinking in Times of Trouble - Quotations to Inspire and Up-lift the Spirit

Positive Thinking - Quotations to Inspire

"If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door." Milton Berle quote.

"The experienced mountain climber is not intimidated by a mountain -- he is inspired by it. The persistent winner is not discouraged by a problem -- he is challenged by it. Mountains are created to be conquered; adversities are designed to be defeated; problems are sent to be solved. It is better to master one mountain than a thousand foothills." William Arthur Ward quote (American dedicated scholar, author, editor, pastor and teacher)

"In every adversity there lies the seed of an equivalent advantage. In every defeat is a lesson showing you how to win the victory next time." Robert Collier quote (American motivational author, 1885-1950)

"If you watch how nature deals with adversity, continually renewing itself, you can't help but learn" Bernie Siegel quote

"If we study the lives of great men and women carefully and unemotionally we find that, invariably, greatness was developed, tested and revealed through the darker periods of their lives. One of the largest tributaries of the RIVER OF GREATNESS is always the STREAM OF ADVERSITY." Cavett Robert quote

"Gold is tried by fire, brave men by adversity" Seneca quote (Roman philosopher, mid-1st century AD)

"Any man can win when things go his way, it's the man who overcomes adversity that is the true champion." Jock Ewing quote

"You don't develop courage by being happy in your relationships everyday. You develop it by surviving difficult times and challenging adversity." Epicurus quote (Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)

"Search for the seed of good in every adversity. Master that principle and you will own a precious shield that will guard you well through all the darkest valleys you must traverse. Stars may be seen from the bottom of a deep well, when they cannot be discerned from the mountaintop. So will you learn things in adversity that you would never have discovered without trouble. There is always a seed of good. Find it and prosper." Og Mandino quote (American Essayist and Phychologist, 1923-1996)

1000's of Oklahoma Criminal Cases Reversed

Subject: Fw: OIDS web site for free legal research - unpublished cases COCA

Below is a link to unpublished decisions in Oklahoma from the COCA - ct. of criminal appeals - it is from the OIDS web site - click on "unpublished COCA opinions" --- lists on the left side are the different sections of areas. The below web site shows 1000's of Oklahoma Criminal cases that are "unpublished" but still persuasive authority but not binding........shows Oklahoma Criminal case cases reversed....

This is great to see all of the reversals and to research the law on issues to see what can be reversed:

General OIDS web site - home page is:

Why Do People Waive Their Miranda Rights or Give Confessions?

Why Do People Waive Their Miranda Rights or Give Confessions?

These study results indicate that people have a na¨ýve faith in the power of their own innocence to set them free. Conceptually, this effect may reflect a special instance of a generalized, and perhaps motivated, belief in a just world in which human beings "get what they deserve" and "deserve what they get" (Lerner, 1980). The effect may also be viewed as symptomatic of an "illusion of transparency," a tendency for people to overestimate the extent to which their own thoughts, emotions, and other inner states are detectable and knowable by others (Gilovich, Savitsky,&Medvec, 1998; Miller& McFarland, 1987). This illusion was evident in a recent study in which mock suspects erroneously assumed that their guilt or innocence would be judged accurately by the interrogator—and by others who would observe their denials (Kassin & Fong, 1999).

From a practical and legal standpoint, this study suggests that Miranda warnings may not adequately protect from police authority the people who may need it most, those falsely accused of crimes they did not commit.With tragic results, this problem was evident in the classic case of Peter Reilly, an 18-year-old who confessed and internalized guilt for the murder of his mother after hours of suggestive interrogation. Solely on the basis of his confession, his confession, Reilly was prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned until independent evidence later revealed that he could not have committed the murder.When asked in a recent interview why he did not invoke his Miranda rights, Reilly said, "My state of mind was that I hadn’t done anything wrong and I felt that only a criminal really needed an attorney, and this was all going to come out in the wash" (Connery, 1996, p. 93).

Defending Justice by Defending People - Democracy Not Tolitarianism

Defending Justice by Defending People
(A Committed Defender of Fellow Human Beings)
by the New York Criminal Defense Lawyers
Defending Justice By Defending People

How can you defend criminals? The question comes in many forms and many voices. Sometimes with an air of arrogant intolerance, sometimes with a tinge of anger, rarely with a sense of admiration. Why did you pick that career? How can you defend "those" people?
What would happen to America if defenders of fellow human beings did not exist? In the absence of the criminal defense bar, who would fulfill the duty of constant vigilance and ensure that no conviction is obtained unless supported by legally sufficient evidence obtained in a constitutionally acceptable manner? The power of the police and prosecution and the powers behind the politicians would be absolute. Americans would seldom be angered by a "not guilty" verdict because none would ever occur. Other nations have adopted systems where prosecutorial accusation equals conviction. Other people have lived under the "protection" of such an infallible system. Those who are in power prefer such a system. The only rule of politics is once you get power, keep it at any cost. People in power hate constitutions and bills of rights because of the limits placed on their power. Those who are governed prefer limits on power.
Patriots of our American Revolution had a healthy, justified skepticism of people in power. Our founders believed only fools or slaves gave blind obedience to power. Our founders understood that a citizen left unprotected by a defender of fellow human beings armed with the Bill of Rights must pray that their government is righteous, virtuous, perfect. Without guilt or malice, slow to anger, tolerant of dissent, racially and ethnically blind. Our founders understood that a citizen without rights must pray that they or their loved ones are never accused, for without the protection of an adversary system and a presumption of innocence, simple accusation equals conviction.

We are advocates because we understand that while you may be able to guarantee that you won't commit a crime, you cannot guarantee that you won't be charged with a crime. We are advocates because if you are charged with a crime, or if your mother, father or loved one were charged with a crime, wouldn't you want every protection afforded by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Or would you feel that you had too many rights? And if you or your loved one was wrongly accused, then who is the victim?

When we walk into the courtrooms, we are not merely defending the human being who stands accused. We are defending a legal system that guarantees the presumption of innocence and every citizen's right to equal protection under the law. The only way we can be assured of our right to a fair trial is if every citizen in our land is assured of his/her right to a fair trial. When one of us is denied justice, we are all denied justice.

What Thomas Jefferson said 200 years ago applies today - - trial by jury is the anchor of all of our liberties. By giving power to the people through the jury system, our Founding Fathers created roadblocks to police and prosecutorial misconduct and prosecution-oriented judges. Our Framers understood all too clearly that control of the police, control of the prosecution, control of the government and control of power takes place in the courtrooms of this Country or it does not take place at all. And they enshrined these principles by providing for the right to counsel in the Sixth Amendment.

The lawyers most critical to protecting the constitutional rights of Americans are not the ones watched and adored by the media. The heroes in the trenches are the devoted criminal defense lawyers who, following the commands of our Founding Fathers, do their work in empty courtrooms, without the press, without an audience and, in far too many instances, without the family of the fellow human being on trial. On a daily basis in every county of this State, a diminishing number of lawyers for our less fortunate speak on behalf of all of us by championing the rights of those wracked desolate by poverty, circumstance, class, color or hatred.
Let's be clear and let's make no mistake about this - - while an indictment may be captioned People v. Human Being, each time that a courtroom is brought to order, we are all on trial, every one of us, and we all are the people and we all are entitled to zealous representation by a committed defender of fellow human beings.

We are advocates. We have had many clients but a single cause. Justice must be served.

Criminal Trials: The "How-to-Win" Trial Manual, 3rd Edition

Dear Legal Professional,
Hello, for a limited time publisher below is offering a 20% discount off the list price ($85) of the book: The "How-To-Win" Trial Manual, 3rd Edition.
To order, and view complete TOC along with other information about the book, please visit our website by clicking the link above.or call our toll free order line: 1 (800) 887-4064 (US & Canada); or fax us your order complete with billing and shipping information with relevant contact telephone and fax numbers to: 1 (631) 351-5712
Includes Online Access!*When you purchase/subscribe to this publication you will receive searchable access to it via our online collection of publications. Upon processing of your order you will receive with your invoice a username and password that will allow you access to that work via the Internet.

The "How-to-Win" Trial Manual, 3rd EditionRalph Adam FineList Price: $85.00. 350 pages. 1 volume. Hardcover. Appendices. Index. ISBN: 1-57823-209-0.

About The Author
Ralph Adam Fine has been a judge on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals since 1988. He served as a trial judge from 1979 to 1988, and presided more than 350 jury trials. He was the presiding judge in the PBS Frontline production Inside the Jury Room, which was the first time jury deliberations in a criminal trial were filmed and broadcast. Judge Fine has taught trial-advocacy, evidence, and appellate-advocacy at over one-hundred continuing-legal-education programs around the country, at in-house trial-advocacy programs to law-firm litigation departments, and as Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University National Law Center in Washington, D.C. In January of 1995, the University of Virginia School of Law honored Judge Fine with the Honorable William J. Brennan, Jr., Award for his contributions to the teaching of trial advocacy. Ralph Adam Fine has been a judge on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals since 1988. He served as a trial judge from 1979 to 1988, and presided more than 350 jury trials. He was the presiding judge in the PBS Frontline production Inside the Jury Room, which was the first time jury deliberations in a criminal trial were filmed and broadcast. Judge Fine has taught trial-advocacy, evidence, and appellate-advocacy at over one-hundred continuing-legal-education programs around the country, at in-house trial-advocacy programs to law-firm litigation departments, and as Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University National Law Center in Washington, D.C. In January of 1995, the University of Virginia School of Law honored Judge Fine with the Honorable William J. Brennan, Jr., Award for his contributions to the teaching of trial advocacy.
Judge Fine is the author of The "How-To-Win" Appeal Manual (Juris) as well as Fine's Wisconsin Evidence (Juris), which Judge Jack B. Weinstein, original co-author of Weinstein's Federal Evidence, called "probably the best single-volume state treatise on the subject that I have seen." Judge Fine is also a senior contributing editor and reporter for the four-volume treatise Evidence in America (Michie); and a contributing editor of the ABA publication Emerging Problems Under The Federal Rules of Evidence (Lexis 3d ed. 1998). He has analyzed legal issues on 60 Minutes, Nightline, and PBS' The NewsHour, as well as a periodic guest on Crossfire and Larry King Live.

Criminal Trial Not Search for Truth but Whether Beyond Reasonable Doubt Government Has Met Burden of Proof - Weight of Evidence

Subject: Fw: Champion magazine says trial not a search for truth......
Champion Magazine proposes some additional criminal jury instructions:

Sample Instruction # 1:Even if you are uncertain whether or not [the defense evidence] [the testimony of a defense witness] is truthful in whole or part, you are not obligated to convict. If, after considering all the evidence, the defense evidence [or any part of it] leaves you with a reasonable doubt as to any element of the charge you must vote to acquit. On the other hand, if you are uncertain whether or not to believe a prosecution witness whose testimony is essential to the proof of any element of the charge, you must vote to acquit.

Sample Instruction # 2:The defense is not obligated to prove the truth of its evidence. Instead the prosecution must prove that its evidence is sufficiently credible, when considered in light of the defense evidence, to prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sample Instruction # 3:The defense has no burden to prove the truthfulness or credibility of defense witnesses and/or the falsity or lack of credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. Instead, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the evidence is sufficiently credible to prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If, after considering all the evidence, any juror who has a reasonable doubt as to any [essential fact] [element of the charge] must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and vote to acquit.

Sample Instruction # 4:If you are uncertain whether or not to believe a prosecution witness whose testimony is essential to the proof of any element of the charge, you must vote to acquit.

Such instructions should also incorporate the well established principle that witness credibility is not necessarily an all-or-nothing preposition and that some portions of the testimony of a witness may be given more or less weight than others. (See e.g, O’Malley, Grenig, & Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, 15.01 [Credibility Of Witnesses — Generally] (West, 5th ed. 2000); see also 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions — Criminal 1.06 [Credibility Of Witnesses] (1998); 6th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions — Criminal 1.07 [Credibility of Witnesses](1991); 8th Circuit Model Jury Instructions — Criminal 1.05 [Credibility Of Witness] (2000); 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions — Criminal 1.7 [Ruling Of Objections] (2000); 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions — Criminal Basic 5 [Credibility of Witnesses] ¶ 1 (1997); Iowa Criminal Jury Instructions 100.5 [Evidence] (Iowa State Bar Association, 1991); Ohio Jury Instructions, Volume 4 — Criminal, 4 OJI 405.20, [Credibility] ¶ 4 (Anderson, 2000).)
As a legal principle the presumption of innocence is straight forward: The prosecution has the burden of proving every essential fact beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant has no burden to produce any evidence at all. (In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358 [90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368]; U.S. v. Maccini (1st Cir. 1983) 721 F.2d 840.) However, in practice this hallowed principle may be counter-intuitive to jurors who are naturally prone to view their role as seeking “the truth.” Therefore it is important for the jury instructions to assure the jurors understand that “. . . the question in a criminal case is not whether the defendant committed the acts of which he is accused. The question is whether the Government has carried its burden to prove its allegations . . . .” (Mitchell v. U.S. (1999) 526 U.S. 314, 328 [119 S.Ct. 1307; 143 L.Ed.2d 424].) In other words, the instructions should avoid language that perpetuates the juror’s intuitive inclination to make the trial a search for the truth.

Criminal Bail Bond Schedules Unconstitutional in Oklahoma Per Attorney General Opinion

Subject: Predetermined bail schedules unconstitutional
Attorney General Opinion 2000 OK AG 61 (Number 61 - Decided 12-11-2000):

Attorney General says predetermined bond schedules determined by Judges unconsitutional

17 By focusing on the crime committed as opposed to the circumstances of the individual arrestee, there is no guarantee that a defendant will return for hearing. In addition, failure to review the Humphrey factors may produce a bail amount that is excessive and, thus, unconstitutional.
¶18 As noted above, a court may not adopt rules that conflict with constitutional provisions. For the reasons stated
above, the use of a jail bail schedule infringes on defendants' constitutional rights guaranteed by both the Oklahoma
and United States Constitutions. Accordingly, judges may not promulgate administrative rules that mandate the use
of a bail schedule based on the crime of which a defendant is accused.

It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:A presiding judge has no authority to establish, by rule or otherwise, a bail schedule
which contains predetermined bail amounts based on the crimes committed.
W. A. DREW EDMONDSONAttorney General of Oklahoma

Confessions and Fifth Amendment - Police Interrogation Techniques - The Reid Technique of Police Interrogation

The Reid Technique of Police Interrogation
A new report on How Stuff Works detailing How Police Interrogation Works (the Reid Technique of Police Interrogation) is rather good and details this most widely used technique. Estimates are as high as 80% of suspects in the U.S. confess to crimes.
For a while, police tried such things as polygraphs to determine if the suspect was being deceptive, but polygraphs and polygraph training are expensive, and the results are almost never admissible in court. But some polygraph analysts, including a man named John Reid, began noticing that subjects exhibited certain outward, consistent physical signs that coincided with the polygraph's determination of untruthfulness. Reid went on to develop a non-machine-based system of interrogation based on specific types of questions and answers that uncover weaknesses the interrogator can use against a suspect to obtain a confession. Reid's "Nine Steps" of psychological manipulation is one of the most popular interrogation systems in the United States today.
Before the nine steps of the Reid interrogation begin, there's an initial interview to determine guilt or innocence. During this time, the interrogator attempts to develop a rapport with the suspect, using casual conversation to create a non-threatening atmosphere. People tend to like and trust people who are like them, so the detective may claim to share some of the suspect's interests or beliefs. If the suspect starts talking to the interrogator about harmless things, it becomes harder to stop talking (or start lying) later when the discussion turns to the crime.
During this initial conversation, the detective observes the suspect's reactions -- both verbal and non-verbal -- to establish a baseline reaction before the real stress begins. The detective will use this baseline later as a comparison point.
One method of creating a baseline involves asking questions that cause the suspect to access different parts of his brain. The detective asks non-threatening questions that require memory (simple recall) and questions that require thinking (creativity). When the suspect is remembering something, his eyes will often move to the right. This is just an outward manifestation of his brain activating the memory center. When he's thinking about something, his eyes might move upward or to the left, reflecting activation of the cognitive center. The detective makes a mental note of the suspect's eye activity.
The next step is to turn the questioning to the task at hand. The detective will ask basic questions about the crime and compare the suspect's reactions to the baseline to determine if the suspect is being truthful or deceptive. If the interrogator asks the suspect where he was the night of the crime and he answers truthfully, he'll be remembering, so his eyes may move to the right; if he's making up an alibi, he's thinking, so his eyes might move to the left. If the interrogator determines that the suspect's reactions indicate deception, and all other evidence points to guilt, the interrogation of a guilty suspect begins.
The Reid technique is the basis of the widely used "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions" manual. It lays out nine steps or issues guiding interrogation. Many of these steps overlap, and there is no such thing as a "typical" interrogation; but the Reid technique provides a blueprint of how a successful interrogation might unfold.
ConfrontationThe detective presents the facts of the case and informs the suspect of the evidence against him. This evidence might be real, or it might be made up. The detective typically states in a confident manner that the suspect is involved in the crime. The suspect's stress level starts increasing, and the interrogator may move around the room and invade the suspect's personal space to increase the discomfort.
Theme developmentThe interrogator creates a story about why the suspect committed the crime. Theme development is about looking through the eyes of the suspect to figure out why he did it, why he'd like to think he did it and what type of excuse might make him admit he did it. Does the suspect use any particular mode of reasoning more often than others? For example, does he seem willing to blame the victim? The detective lays out a theme, a story, that the suspect can latch on to in order to either excuse or justify his part in the crime, and the detective then observes the suspect to see if he likes the theme. Is he paying closer attention than before? Nodding his head? If so, the detective will continue to develop that theme; if not, he'll pick a new theme and start over. Theme development is in the background throughout the interrogation. When developing themes, the interrogator speaks in a soft, soothing voice to appear non-threatening and to lull the suspect into a false sense of security.

Stopping denialsLetting the suspect deny his guilt will increase his confidence, so the detective tries to interrupt all denials, sometimes telling the suspect it'll be his turn to talk in a moment, but right now, he needs to listen. From the start of the interrogation, the detective watches for denials and stops the suspect before he can voice them. In addition to keeping the suspect's confidence low, stopping denials also helps quiet the suspect so he doesn't have a chance to ask for a lawyer. If there are no denials during theme development, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt. If initial attempts at denial slow down or stop during theme development, the interrogator knows he has found a good theme and that the suspect is getting closer to confessing.
Overcoming objectionsOnce the interrogator has fully developed a theme that the suspect can relate to, the suspect may offer logic-based objections as opposed to simple denials, like "I could never rape somebody -- my sister was raped and I saw how much pain it caused. I would never do that to someone." The detective handles these differently than he does denials, because these objections can give him information to turn around and use against the suspect. The interrogator might say something like, "See, that's good, you're telling me you would never plan this, that it was out of your control. You care about women like your sister -- it was just a one-time mistake, not a recurring thing." If the detective does his job right, an objection ends up looking more like an admission of guilt.
Getting the suspect's attentionAt this point, the suspect should be frustrated and unsure of himself. He may be looking for someone to help him escape the situation. The interrogator tries to capitalize on that insecurity by pretending to be the suspect's ally. He'll try to appear even more sincere in his continued theme development, and he may get physically closer to the suspect to make it harder for the suspect to detach from the situation. The interrogator may offer physical gestures of camaraderie and concern, such as touching the suspect's shoulder or patting his back.

The suspect loses resolveIf the suspect's body language indicates surrender -- his head in his hands, his elbows on his knees, his shoulders hunched -- the interrogator seizes the opportunity to start leading the suspect into confession. He'll start transitioning from theme development to motive alternatives (see the next step) that force the suspect to choose a reason why he committed the crime. At this stage, the interrogator makes every effort to establish eye contact with the suspect to increase the suspect's stress level and desire to escape. If, at this point, the suspect cries, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt.
AlternativesThe interrogator offers two contrasting motives for some aspect of the crime, sometimes beginning with a minor aspect so it's less threatening to the suspect. One alternative is socially acceptable ("It was a crime of passion"), and the other is morally repugnant ("You killed her for the money"). The detective builds up the contrast between the two alternatives until the suspect gives an indicator of choosing one, like a nod of the head or increased signs of surrender. Then, the detective speeds things up.
Bringing the suspect into the conversationOnce the suspect chooses an alternative, the confession has begun. The interrogator encourages the suspect to talk about the crime and arranges for at least two people to witness the confession. One may be the second detective in room, and another may be brought in for the purpose of forcing the suspect to confess to a new detective -- having to confess to a new person increases the suspect's stress level and his desire to just sign a statement and get out of there. Bringing a new person into the room also forces the suspect to reassert his socially acceptable reason for the crime, reinforcing the idea that the confession is a done deal.

The confessionThe final stage of an interrogation is all about getting the confession admitted at trial. The interrogator will have the suspect write out his confession or state it on videotape. The suspect is usually willing to do anything at this point to escape the interrogation. The suspect confirms that his confession is voluntary, not coerced, and signs the statement in front of witnesses.
It should be noted here that if, at any point during the interrogation, the suspect does somehow manage to ask for a lawyer or invoke his right to silence, the interrogation has to stop immediately. That's why it's so important to interrupt the suspect's attempts to speak in the initial stages -- if he invokes his rights, the interrogation is over.
The steps we've laid out here represent some of the psychological techniques that detectives use to get confessions from suspects. But a real interrogation doesn't always follow the textbook.

Expunging and Sealing Arrest Records - Information

Most defendants, if they meet one of the conditions of Title 22 O.S. §18, will be able to obtain an expungement without an objection from the law enforcement agencies. However, every defendant who qualifies for an arrest record expungement MAY NOT be entitled to such relief. Title 22 O.S. Section 19 allows for an objection by law enforcement if public policy concerns in retaining the records outweigh your client's privacy interests in having them sealed. Recent examples of cases where public policy objections have been filed by law enforcement agencies include defendants who were medical personnel with drug arrests or teachers with arrests for sexual offenses with children and bank or financial employees with embezzlement - fraud arrests.
Agencies may also file a public policy objection on a defendant who has numerous other contacts with police.
Oklahoma Statutes Title 22, Section 19, subsection C, states as follows:Balancing Test:C. Upon a finding that the harm to privacy of the person in interest or dangers of unwarranted adverse consequences outweigh the public interest in retaining the records, the court may order such records, or any part thereof except basic identification information, to be sealed. If the court finds that neither sealing of the records nor maintaining of the records unsealed by the agency would serve the ends of justice, the court may enter an appropriate order limiting access to such records.

With the NEW AMENDMENT to 74 O.S. 150.22, there is a new $150.00 fee to the OSBI for the OSBI to process the 18/19 expungement if you successfully obtain a court order after a hearing. There is a $150 fee now for OSBI to enter an expungment/seal order that went into effect 9-1-05.

With a (Deferred Sentence Review) - 991c expungement there will not be a $150 charge and you shouldn't have to file it as a CJ, but it won't expunge the arrest, only the guilty plea. If it is an 18/19 expungement, the fee will apply and Tulsa and Oklahoma county has an administrative rule requiring you to file it as a CJ and the OSBI will require payment of $150.00 dollars before they will enter the order sealing the "arrest" record.

Defendant's Right to Paid Counsel of Choice Upheld by USSC

See: United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, No. 05-352 (June 26, 2006):

Defendant has right to paid counsel of choice and it is not harmless error to deny the same, it is reversible error.

A trial court's erroneous refusal to allow a criminal defendant to be represented by paid counsel of choice is structural error requiring outright reversal of his conviction, a sharply divided Supreme Court held today. In the case at bar, a federal district court in Missouri erroneously denied a motion for admission pro hac vice by the defendant's paid counsel. On appeal in the Supreme Court, the Government conceded that the attorney should have been admitted for the trial; it argued, instead, that the defendant should have to show some prejudice from the denial of paid counsel of choice. Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia rejected the Government's argument, which he described as an attempt to evade what he called "the root meaning" of the Sxith Amendment. "The right to select counsel of one's choice . . . has never been divided from the Sixth Amendment's purpose of ensuring a fair trial." See: United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, No. 05-352 (June 26, 2006).
Justice Scalia's opinion was joined by the more "liberal" members of the Court--Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
Justice Alito wrote the dissent. He stressed that the text of the Sixth Amendment guarantees "the assistance" of counsel. He thought this phrasing suggested that an erroneous denial of counsel of choice should be examined for harmless error, to see whether the right to "assistance" had actually been impaired. He also thought it noteworthy that the right to paid counsel of choice is circumscribed at times. Paid counsel may be ineligible to serve in a certain court, may have a conflict of interest, or may be committed to another trial at a certain time.

Specific over General - Misdemeanor Larcency of Merchandise from Retailer Instead of Felony Petite Larceny Recidivist

Subject: New: State v. Franks - Specific over general - Misdemeanor - larceny of merchandise 2nd instead of Felony petite larceny recidiviist
New: 7-26-06:
STATE v. FRANKS, S-2005-607, 2006 OK CR 31, Decided 07/26/2006

Avery Lloyd Franks was charged with the crime of Petit Larceny, after former conviction of Petit Larceny, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case Number CF-2004-5303, in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 51.3 (3). The crime is a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five (5) years. The information listed three prior convictions: grand larceny; petit larceny, afcf; and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. The trial judge sustained the motion, treating it as a timely motion to quash due to the fact that Franks had stood mute and never entered a plea. The trial judge ruled “the evidence at trial more properly reflected the offense of larceny of merchandise from a retailer, second offense.” He ordered the case transferred to misdemeanor court and the State to file an amended information. The State then filed this appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the State's Appeal.

In the instant case, the prosecutor charged Franks under the general petit larceny statute (via the recidivist [felony] provision in 21 O.S.2001, § 51.3(3)) rather than the more specific crime of (misdemeanor) larceny of merchandise from a retailer, second offense, under 21 O.S.2001, § 1731 (2). This was wrong and thwarted the legislature’s intent that larceny crimes from retail outlets should be brought under section 1731. This case pits two legal principles against each other. The first is the well-recognized principle that prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding what charges to bring, a principle with which we heartily agree. The second principle arises under common law and provides that specific statutes control general ones. This second rule comes into play when the charges brought under a more general statute “thwart” the legislative intent in enacting the more specific one.

Criminal Sentencing Realities - What Works? - Recommendations by Judge Michael H. Marcus

Sentencing in the Temple of Denunciation: Criminal Justice’s Weakest Link
by Judge Michael H. Marcus* (Circuit Court Judge in Oregon)
From the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law (Vol. 1, Page 670-681)


Judges handling criminal cases in Multnomah County have added a box to orders for "pre-sentence investigations" to require that the report include analysis of "what is most likely to reduce this offender’s future criminal conduct and why, including the availability of any relevant programs in or out of custody." And we have begun discussions with our probation department management to incorporate a similar focus into routine probation reports and hearings. "What works" is increasingly addressed in sentencing discussions, and there is great hope that this effort will help free criminal justice from its archaic baggage and make it a responsible institution of public safety. We surely have a practical application for the relevant academic disciplines. If this progresses as intended, transformation of the sentencing ritual will eventually focus public debate and legislative policy on rational crime reduction.

We now know a lot about what does and does not work. Scared Straight, D.A.R.E.,
shock incarceration, shock probation, and boot camp programs do not work and

For low-risk offenders, lighter sanctions, shorter sentences, and minimal supervision
correlate with reduced criminal behavior as compared with more severe responses.
Treatment programs that identify and responsibly address multiple criminogenic factors
are much more effective than treatment programs that do not address criminogenic factors,
and substantially more effective than programs that address only one or two criminogenic factors. Prison terms as a means of incapacitation work very well during the period of imprisonment. Measured by its impact on recidivism after release, though, any sentence longer than six months is probably counterproductive.

Oklahoma Youthful Offender Boot Camps & RID Program - Boot Camps Banned in Florida but Accepted by Oklahomans

Boot Camps: Banned in Florida by Govenor Jeb Bush
but Generally Accepted in Oklahoma

Boot camps were banned in Florida on June 1, 2005 through legislation signed by Florida Governor Jeb Bush after 14-year-old Martin Lee Anderson was murdered by drill instructors who forcibly inserted ammonia tablets into his nose. Anderson attended Bay County Boot Camp in Panama City, Florida. After the mid-1990s, the number of boot camps declined. By 2000, nearly one-third of State prison boot camps had closed--only 51 camps remained. (See: NIJ study below.) The average daily population in State boot camps also dropped more than 30 percent.
The National Institute of Justice conducted a 10 year long study of boot camps and their report dated 2003
is available at the web site: or:

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored an analysis of research conducted over a 10-year period beginning in the late 1980s. This analysis concluded that [See above link for the report dated (2003)] - it concluded: Mixed Results:
Participants reported positive short-term changes in attitudes and behaviors;
they also had better problem-solving and coping skills.

With few exceptions, these positive changes did not lead to reduced recidivism. The boot camps that did produce lower recidivism rates offeredmore treatment services, had longer sessions, and included more intensive post release supervision. However, not all programs with these features hadsuccessful results.
Under a narrow set of conditions, boot camps can lead to small relative reductions in prison populations and correctional costs.

Adult recidivism. A multisite evaluation sponsored by NIJ could not establish adifference in recidivism between adult boot camp graduates and comparisongroup members, although the research indicated that more treatment services,
longer programs, and intensive post- release supervision may lower recidivism.[4]
Other research on adult boot camps in Georgia and Illinois found no differencein recidivism.[5] An evaluation of Washington's Work Ethic Camp[6] (WEC)actually found higher recidivism, from high rates of revoked parole. Most ofthese were technical violations.[7] One study found that Oregon adult bootcamp graduates had significantly lower recidivism than the comparison group,but results were flawed because camp dropouts were excluded from theanalysis.[8]

After the mid-1990s, the number of boot camps declined. By 2000, nearlyone-third of State prison boot camps had closed--only 51 camps remained. The average daily population in State boot camps also dropped more than 30 percent.[3]
NIJ evaluation studies consistently showed that boot camps did not reduce recidivism regardless of whether the camps were for adults or juveniles or whether they were first-generation programs with a heavy military emphasis orlater programs with more emphasis on treatment.

NIJ-sponsored boot camp researchers agree that correctional boot camps might achieve small relative[14] reductions in prison populations. Boot campscould reduce the number of prison beds needed in a jurisdiction, which would lead to modest reductions in correctional costs.

Other countries have been closely watching the boot camp system in the US but so far have been slow to copy it, if at all. In Canada and Europe many see US society as highly militarised for which the military style boot camps are just another example. After having shed a very militaristic past, Europeans tend to be quite wary of military influence in civil society. As well, the tactics employed in most boot camps are considered to infringe on the human rights of the affected and to be rather totalitarian. Therefore in Canada participation in boot camp programmes are voluntary, so as to avoid any challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under which treatment at boot camps could be seen as an infringement on a youth's right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment and to ensure security of person. Canada started a boot camp project for non-violent juveniles with subtle but distinct differences from the American models. The first one was opened in 1997 in Ontario. Unlike in the US system it is not possible to trade or shorten a jail sentence with a significantly shorter boot camp programme. Canadian boot camps do not have the time frame of 90 to 180 days and they are restricted to juveniles up to the age of 17 and not yet open for female offenders. The judges do not directly possess the authority to send a youth to a boot camp. They may impose a sentence of secure or open custody. The latter is defined as, "a community residential centre, group home, child care institution or forest or wilderness camp . . .". Once an open custody sentence is granted, a correctional official decides whether a sentence is served in a boot camp programme. But the ultimate decision rests with the young person and the decision is made purely on the merits of the programme because the time served remains the same.

The Canadian system is too young to show any comparable results but research has been done among US boot camps with different emphasises, e. g. more on drug treatment or education than solely on military drill. According to the findings treatment has a slightly positive impact on the reduction of recidivism over strict discipline.

However, altogether there are no research findings in favour of boot camps in light of any of the initial intentions. Recidivism rates in the US among former prison inmates and boot camp participants are roughly the same. Yet, the effects of boot camps are controversially disputed, some surveys claiming lower re-offence rates, others showing no change as compared to persons serving normal time. Surveys also show different results concerning the reduction of costs. Critics add, that the emphasis on authority can only result in frustration, resentment, anger, short temper, a low self-esteem and aggression rather than respect. According to a report in the New York Times there have been 30 known deaths of youths in US boot camps since 1980.

Angels Do Not Govern, Men Do -If Music Be the Food of Love then Laughter is its Queen- We Danced the Light Fandango, Turned Cartwheels Cross the Floor

From Speech by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, Associate Justice of California Supreme Court - April 20, 2000, at the Federalists Society at the University of Chicago Law School.
You will probably disagree with certain parts of it, but there is usually something that can be gained from ideas and theories of other people.

Subject: Angels do not govern, men do-

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." From James Madison.
"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." From JAMES MADISON, The Federalist, ed. Benjamin F. Wright, no. 51, p. 356 (1961)

CHRISTIANITY: "All things whatsover you would that men should do to you, do you even to them: For this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

Jean Francois Revel warns: "The totalitarian mind can reappear in some new and unexpected and seemingly innocuous and indeed virtuous form. [¶]... [I]t ... will [probably] put itself forward under the cover of a generous doctrine, humanitarian, inspired by a concern for giving the disadvantaged their fair share, against corruption, and pollution, and 'exclusion.'" Jean Francois Revel, Democracy Against Itself (The Free Press 1993) ."Socialism concentrated all the wealth in the hands of an oligarchy in the name of social justice, reduced peoples to misery in the name of shar[ed] resources, to ignorance in the name of science. It created the modern world's most inegalitarian societies in the name of equality, the most vast network of concentration camps ever built [for] the defense of liberty." See, Revels, ibid.

There is nothing new, of course, in the idea that the framers did not buy into the notion of human perfectibility. And the document they drafted and the nation adopted in 1789 is shot through with provisions that can only be understood against the supposition that humanity's capacity for evil and tyranny is quite as real and quite as great as its capacity for reason and altruism. Indeed, as noted earlier, in politics, the framers may have envisioned the former tendency as the stronger, especially in the wake of the country's experience under the Articles of Confederation. The fear of "factions," of an "encroaching tyranny"; the need for ambition to counter ambition"; all of these concerns identified in the Federalist Papers have stratagems designed to defend against them in the Constitution itself. We needed them, the framers were convinced, because "angels do not govern"; men do.

Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."3 He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.

I will close with a story I like a lot. It's a true story. It happened on June 10, 1990. A British Airways jet bound for Malaga, Spain, took off from Birmingham, England. It was expected to be a routine flight. As the jet climbed through the 23,000-foot level, there was a loud bang; the cockpit windshield directly in front of the captain blew out. The sudden decompression sucked Captain Lancaster out of his seatbelt and into the hole left by the windscreen. A steward who happened to be in the cockpit managed to snag the captain's feet as he hurtled past. Another steward rushed onto the flight deck, strapped himself into the captain's chair and, helped by other members of the crew, clung with all his strength to the captain. The slipstream was so fierce, they were unable to drag the pilot back into the plane. His clothing was ripped from his body. With Lancaster plastered against the nose of the jet, the co-pilot donned an oxygen mask and flew the plane to Southampton —approximately 15 minutes away — and landed safely. The captain had a fractured elbow, wrist and thumb; a mild case of frostbite, but was otherwise unharmed.
We find ourselves, like the captain, in a situation that is hopeless but not yet desperate. The arcs of history, culture, philosophy, and science all seem to be converging on this temporal instant. Familiar arrangements are coming apart; valuable things are torn from our hands, snatched away by the decompression of our fragile ark of culture. But, it is too soon to despair. The collapse of the old system may be the crucible of a new vision. We must get a grip on what we can and hold on. Hold on with all the energy and imagination and ferocity we possess. Hold on even while we accept the darkness. We know not what miracles may happen; what heroic possibilities exist. We may be only moments away from a new dawn.
In truth, they need not banish us to the gulag. We are not much of a threat, lacking even a coherent language in which to state our premise. [I should pause here to explain the source of the title to this discussion. Unless you are a very old law student, you probably never heard of "A Whiter Shade of Pale."] "A Whiter Shade of Pale" is an old (circa 1967) Procol Harum song, full of nonsensical lyrics, but powerfully evocative nonetheless. Here's a sample:
"We skipped the light fandango turned cartwheels cross the floor I was feeling kinda seasick but the crowd called out for more.
The room was humming harder as the ceiling flew away. When we called out for another drink the waiter brought a tray."
There is something about this that forcibly reminds me of our current political circus. The last verse is even better.
"If music be the food of love then laughter is its queen and likewise if behind is in front then dirt in truth is clean...."
Sound familiar? Of course Procol Harum had an excuse. These were the 60's after all, and the lyrics were probably drug induced. What's our excuse?
From Speech by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, Associate Justice of California Supreme Court - April 20, 2000, at the Federalists Society at the University of Chicago Law School.
Read the entire speech, click here:
You will probably disagree with certain parts of it, but there is usually something that can be gained from ideas and theories of other people.

False Positive Drug Test Results & the Right to Independent Testing

Subject: False positive test results and right to independent testing
An "independent" lab test is most useful in a "residue" case where the same is so small it may have been used up in the testing by the state and then a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence or spoilation of evidence might be in order.
The below Moore case talks also about false positive test results for "cocaine" on certain cough medicines.
Some experts could probably testify about false postitive test results for "methamphetamine" but that would require money and time. Certainly, in "manufacturing" cases there are experts that could testify about false positives for certain components in the manufacturing process, such as paints or varnishes and the like that can give false positive test results.

Above is the link to this case which holds you have a right to an independent lab analysis:

Moore v. State, 1987 OK CR 149, 740 P.2d 731

We note that many other jurisdictions have determined that refusal to furnish a defendant, who has been charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance, with a sample of the alleged contraband, is error. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 243 So.2d 396, 398 (Miss. 1971) ("meaning of a "`fair trial' requires that material, tangible evidence must not be concealed from the defendant who is accused of crime. There is no good reason why the defendant in a civil case should be entitled to more liberal right to tangible evidence in the possession of his adversary . . . than is a person under a serious criminal charge"); Patterson v. State, 238 Ga. 204, 232 S.E.2d 233, 243 (1977) (where "acquittal is dependent upon the identification of the substances as contraband, due process of law requires that analysis of the substance not be left completely within the province of the state"); Warren v. State, 292 Ala. 71, 288 So.2d 826 (1973) (same); State v. Smith, 156 W. Va. 385, 193 S.E.2d 550 (1972) (defendant is entitled to be given an opportunity to examine contraband independently, as it may provide exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). See also People v. Taylor, 54 Ill. App.3d 454, 369 N.E.2d 573, 12 Ill.Dec. 76 (1977); State v. Migliore, 261 La. 722, 260 So.2d 682 (1972).
¶15 The rationale used by these other jurisdictions would find support for a similar Oklahoma rule, under our prior precedent. We have said that "[p]rior to trial petitioner will be entitled to receive from the State any information that might tend to exculpate him or mitigate his punishment in the event of a conviction". Stafford v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 595 P.2d 797, 799 (Okl.Cr. 1979). As noted by the West Virginia Supreme Court in State v. Smith, supra, a defendant charged with the illegal possession or sale [740 P.2d 735] of contraband "should [be] permitted to examine a sample, under proper supervision and control, since it might [be] shown that the alleged [contraband] was not illegal . . ." State v. Smith, supra at 554. Judge Nix once noted, "[a] criminal trial is not a game of hide and seek. Disclosure of items in the possession of the State which would negate a defendant's guilt is dictated by fundamental fairness." Stevenson v. State, 486 P.2d 646, 650 (Okl.Cr. 1971). We have long equated notions of fundamental fairness with due process of law under our State Constitution. Cf. Jones v. State, 610 P.2d 818 (Okl.Cr. 1980) (although a defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial, he is entitled, as a matter of due process, to one that is fair). Finally, we note that in Melton v. State, supra, this Court determined that a person accused of exhibiting an obscene film was entitled to a pre-trial inspection of the file by an expert because "[i]n defending against this one narrow issue, expert testimony traditionally has played an important role in the defense of such charge." Id. at 205. Likewise, the identification of an alleged narcotic substance requires the services of an expert, and without the adequate assistance of an expert, an accused cannot successfully rebut the conclusions of the State. Therefore, we hold that due process considerations under Okla. Const. art. II, § 7 requires the State to afford the accused an opportunity to have his expert examine and test the samples of the substance which were actually examined by the State's experts. Of course, this rule does not extend to situations in which the sample is necessarily consumed in testing, nor does it forbid the trial court from placing conditions on the examination designed to adequately safeguard the integrity of the evidence.
¶16 We therefore hold the trial court erred in forbidding independent examination to this appellant.
¶17 We are cognizant of the fact that the prosecution offered the appellant certain random samples of the seized substance which was not tested by the State. The offering of random samples, not specifically tested by the State, provides the appellant with no reliable evidence for cross-examination, impeachment purposes, or for his case-in-chief. Therefore, this gesture by the State was insufficient to fulfill the discovery requirements set forth above.

We hold today that under our statute, all isomers of cocaine are not controlled substances. We arrive at this conclusion for three reasons. First, only one isomer, L-cocaine, is a derivative of the coca leaf, according to the testimony of both the State and defense experts (Tr. 510, 531, 535). See also United States v. Ross, 719 F.2d 615, 617 (2d Cir. 1983). Any other "isomer" of cocaine is controlled by statute only if it is "chemically equivalent or identical" with the substance derived from the coca leaf. 63 O.S. 1981 § 2-206 [63-2-206](A)(4).

Oklahoma Sentencing Commission Recommends Alternatives to Prison

Oklahoma Sentencing Commission Report recommends alternatives to prison, see the below:
Web site location of the report in pdf format:

or see the other report at:

Recommends against incarceration in prison for probation violations, instead recommends utilizing intermediate sanctions, treatment, jail sentencing, and GPS monitoring, and other options, instead of prison.

Findings of the Oklahoma Sentencing Commission (2004) recommendations
to the legislature concerning felony sentencing:
1. Oklahoma's criminal justice system uses probation 40 % less than average, according to a 2002 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

2. Oklahoma spends $2.04/day per offender on parole/probation supervision, half the U.S. average rate of $4.37/day.

3. Community-based supervision programs are more likely to produce positive outcomes for lower risk offenders than prison sentences. Recidivism rates of offenders after 36 months are as follows: 19% for drug court graduates, 35% for standard probation offenders, and 67% for prisoners.
Recidivism rates of offenders (measured as prison incarceration) are as follows: drug court graduates are almost two times or 73% less likely to recidivate than successful standard probation offenders, and drug court graduates are over 4 times or 315.8% less likely to recidivate than released prison inmates.

Utilize intermediate sanctions for offenders on probation instead of revocation.
Recommends utilizing an administrative process for violations. Says sanctions should be swift and certain. Says Oklahoma spends about $57 million per year on incarceration costs of offenders for technical violations.
Says should use intermediate sanctions to modify behavior and improve compliance such as substance abuse treatment, electronic monitoring and short term jail stints.

Recommends removing the requirement that the District Attorney is the gate-keeper for two or more prior felony convictions for getting into Community Sentencing. States that 85% of all offenders sentenced in 2002 were convicted of non-violent offences.

Split sentences for sex offenders whereby they will be released on supervised probation when released from prison instead of being released without supervision.

ABA Commission Recommends Improvements on Criminal Sentencing

Direct link to the ABA report in pdf format:

Date of Report from American Bar Association Commmission on Effective Criminal Sanctions: June 2006
Delivered to the ABA House of Delegates - August 2006 (awaiting final approval of the ABA at Large)

Another link to the ABA report:

ABA Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions

Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions (78 pages)

Qoutes Justice Kennedy on intial pages: "When the door is locked against the prisoner, we do not think about what is behind it."
Most states now spend more on their prison than on their schools. Kennedy says "Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long."

Says when judges train only with judges and when prosecutors train only with prosecutors, (probation officers with probation) etc., that preconceptions or misconceptions may be reinforced rather than challenged. Recommends cross training and inclusion of other professions.

Says that there is no organized training, no means of sharing information about alternative sentencing programs between prosecutors, and no way of analyzing the programs' strengths and weaknesses. Says a trained prosecutor should strive for a greater awareness of available alternatives, and greater knowledge of the sanctions that are most likely to be effective in reducing crime and victimization in the long run.

Prosecutors all understand that they have an obligation to "seek justice," but there is not common understanding of what that means in a particular situation. Too many prosecutors, "seeking justice" may simply mean zealously pursuing a conviction and seeking the most severe sentence the law allows. There is insufficient familiarity with a variety of community-based programs or concepts. It is easy for prosecutors to charge whatever offense might be described in a police report, and to seek to maximize the potential prison sentence an individual may receive in every case. But, easy is not necessarily smart or just, and not necessarily in the best interests of the community.

This ABA report also comes down on the public defenders office. It both compliments some offices and then pushes for change and improvements. Talks about a "wholistic" approach to defending people. Uh oh, more work for less pay. Here it comes. It says public defenders should be expanded to handle the civil matters of indigents also. Help them obtain criminal record expungements and to help them on civil matters. (mental illness and substance abuse issues - treatment)

This report is 78 pages and no I have not read every page. It goes on and on and on. Gets probation officer really good too. Gets the Judges and the prosecutors and the public defenders. Private attorneys aren't left out either. It gets us all.

ABA reports recommends that probation officers and prison officials and public defenders and private attorneys are to advise defendants of the processes for obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation, or other evidence of restoration of rights and relief from disabilities.
The ABA Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions has a report issued for the August ABA meeting that requires, in report 300E, that criminal defense lawyers and trial courts be charged with the duty of advising defendants pleading guilty about the collateral consequences of their pleas, including immigration consequences, with the end that all jurisdictions will enable those convicted to earn a certificate of rehabilitation.

Information About the Law Practice of Glen R. Graham


1612 S. Cincinnati Ave
Tulsa, OK 74119
Phone: (918) 583-4621

* Motions to Reduce Bond * Visa & Some Credit Cards *
Payment Plan Available * Experienced Criminal Defense

Currently, I am limiting my practice to Oklahoma. I have practiced law for over 19 years and I have handled thousands of MISDEMEANOR-FELONY cases, considerably more than some of my competitors. If you are charged with a criminal offense, you should hire an experienced criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible in order to protect your legal rights. I have the experience and knowledge to handle your case with the least amount of inconvenience. I can answer your questions and concerns about what to expect when you go to court. Freedom is one of the most precious things in the world; you would be acting foolish to appear in front of a Judge without adequate representation. I can help you deal with this problem. Call me now at 583-4621.

My fee on any felony or misdemeanor is based upon the amount of work and other factors. Beware of low fee quotes that promise unrealistic results. Quality work costs money, low quality work is cheap. An adequate fee to devote the necessary amount of time and energy necessary to win a case or to get a good deal requires adequate payment. Also, if you don’t care about whether the lawyer spends sufficient time or energy on your case necessary to get a good deal or to win, then you might be satisfied with a low fee quote. Payment plan, cash or Visa.

You need straight and realistic answers from a lawyer and not "scare tactics" or outlandish promises. You don’t need unrealistic exaggerations, sales puffing or self-glorification or three page letters with excessive promises and letters written in excessively large type almost shouting at you. You should always ask the lawyer how many years they have been in practice and a letter that fails to state it is questionable. Each case is different and requires a thorough examination of the individual facts for any legal defenses.

You may want to employ me to file to obtain a bond reduction or to file a motion to suppress evidence or to quash your arrest. Any criminal case is a serious matter as it carries the potential of being sentenced to jail and freedom is one of the most precious things in the world. YOU NEED A LAWYER YOU CAN TRUST TO GET THE JOB DONE RIGHT. Please call me to schedule an appointment to discuss your options.
My telephone number is (918) 583-4621

Best Regards,

Glen R. Graham, Attorney at Law

If you find anything in this communication to be inaccurate or misleading, you may report the same by writing to the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association, P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, OK 73152 or by calling 1-800-522-8065.

Welcome to my Blog!!!

I have just created this blog and it will take me a few days to get things going. Please be patient. Check out this other great blog: