Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch

More on Tribal Law

admin — Mon, 21 Aug 2023 18:34:29 +0000

Tribal Courts all have individual codes to deal with everything from misdemeanors to adoptions. If you or anyone involved in your case is a member or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe there are certain advantages and disadvantages you need to discuss with someone that is knowledgeable. Wagner and Lynch have been in tribal court systems since its inception. We have appeared in all 5 of the significant tribes’ courts, conducted jury and bench trials in tribal courts, and handled hundreds of matters in tribal courts. Additionally, we are hired across the state for our expertise in tribal members’ rights in State court. This usually comes through the Indian Child Welfare Act(s). There are federal and state laws, codified to help prevent the breakup of the Indian family, that very few attorneys are proficient to handle.

Us Indian Child Welfare Act

The US Indian Child Welfare Act addresses specific requirements for people looking to break up Indian families. There are several resources to help understand the act, like this one from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but each ICWA case is different. The federal act has faced recent challenges in cases like the “Baby Girl Veronica” case where it was narrowed, and to affirmations like in the Brackeen case. Whether you are a prospective adoptive placement or a parent looking to hold on to your parental rights, you need someone with knowledge of the current status of the ICWA. Indian Child Welfare also greatly affects one’s rights in juvenile deprived cases or termination of parental rights cases and guardianships. If anyone has Indian membership or potential eligibility for membership you need someone with experience to handle the issue(s).

Tribal Jurisdiction

Tribal Jurisdiction: tribal courts have wide-ranging authority in family law matters, civil matters, and criminal matters (link to criminal tribal stuff). Each tribe has a unique code and some have odd procedures. For instance the Choctaw nation only recently recognized same-sex marriage and at least one of the five primary tribes in the state still does not recognize same sex marriage. Interestingly, the protections a tribal member enjoys in State court under the Indian Child Welfare Act are not applicable in tribal courts. ICWA only applies to actions in state court. You may not get a jury trial for termination, the tribe is not required to use active efforts to help you, and the burdens of proof to adjudicate your child(ren) deprived or terminate your rights might be lower. These things can all change in an instant, so it is important to have someone familiar with the law of the tribe

Indian Civil rights are not the same as your regular rights as a US citizen. Although there are some rights that carry over due to the Indian Civil Rights Act and its amendments not all of them do. Additionally, there are some civil rights that are specific to the tribes and their constitutions that do not exist outside of the nation. Lastly, the place you have to go to enforce your civil rights might be different from tribe to tribe.

Contact Us Today

If you are in need of legal representation in regard to the topics discussed above, give us a call. We would love to hear from you and help you navigate tribal law.

The post More on Tribal Law first appeared on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

The post More on Tribal Law appeared first on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

More on Criminal Law

admin — Mon, 21 Aug 2023 18:34:06 +0000

CRMINIAL LAW

Criminal Law is defined by Cornell University as “a system of laws concerned with crimes and punishment of individuals who commit crimes. Although this seems like a straightforward and simple definition, the fact is that the practice of criminal law is much wider-ranging and complicated. Fortunately, the firm of Wagner and Lynch has both experience and a great depth of knowledge in this area of law, and our long track record of success is proof.

At Wagner and Lynch, we take, what other attorneys may refer to as, an aggressive approach to criminal defense. That is because we are trial attorneys, and see every case from the view that trial is guaranteed. We believe in an immersive approach that often includes conducting our own investigation, to visiting the scene if available. Years of practicing as if always preparing for trial has proven repeatedly to obviously benefit those that do go to trial, but also those whose case results in a dismissal from the court, or by agreement with the District Attorney’s Office. This approach also often results in better offers for our clients that wish do wish to plea. We believe that a good plea result is always more likely when coming from a prosecutor wishing to avoid trial than approaching a prosecutor and begging for mercy. We never beg for mercy.

For the purpose of this section, we are going to separate Criminal Law into three distinct categories, Criminal Misdemeanors, Criminal Felonies, and DUI/DUID offenses. The Oklahoma Criminal Code can be found in Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. This Title includes most of the acts that are criminalized under Oklahoma Law, but not all. Other Titles include criminal statutes and punishments as well. Most notably the Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS), or Drug crimes, and the punishments for them are contained in Title 63 the “Public Health and Safety” laws, and most laws regarding motor vehicle crimes such as DUI and other traffic violations are found in Title 47. We will address these more specifically below.

Criminal Misdemeanors

A Misdemeanor is a criminal offense that does not carry a punishment that exceeds a $1000.00 fine, or incarceration in the county jail for more than one year, or both. Under Oklahoma law, most misdemeanors have specific penalties for the specific crime committed. This may include a maximum sentence of 30, or 90 days, or six months in jail, but if no penalty is specified in the statute, then the default maximum punishment is one year in county jail, a $1,000 fine, or both. Some misdemeanor offenses have higher penalties based upon other facts surrounding the alleged offense. For example, the crime of assault carries a maximum of 30 days in jail and no more than a $500 fine, but assault and battery carries up to 90 days in jail and no more than a $1,000.00 fine. Even still assault and battery of a family member or spouse/domestic partner carries up to a year in the county jail and a fine not to exceed $5,000.00, and it is what is called a predicate offense. A predicate offense is a misdemeanor offense that if one is convicted of it could face a felony if the same offense is alleged to have been violated within ten years of the previous conviction. Then if an assault and battery involve a dangerous or deadly weapon or results in great bodily injury may be filed as a felony. You can see how the offense progresses from a misdemeanor to a felony here. Many people will represent themselves in misdemeanors, or they consider these to be small crimes or “ticketable” offenses that should not require the services of an attorney. In some cases, this may be true. Often the prosecutor is going to offer a small fine or short amount of probation which would be an attractive conclusion for someone facing a misdemeanor offense like a public intoxication charge or traffic violation. However, you should always consult with an attorney before deciding if it is best to proceed alone. As discussed above a misdemeanor can have long-term ramifications that one who is not well-versed on the application of Oklahoma Criminal Law will not know. Also, just because the government accuses you of something, does not mean you have to accept that because hiring an attorney and fighting it is just “too much of a hassle.” At Wagner and Lynch, we take phone calls every day from people that are contemplating this very thing. Consulting with us is always FREE, and we are going to tell you all the potential consequences, risks, and costs associated with any misdemeanor charge. This firm does represent clients in misdemeanor jury trials, and we have a long track record of success in misdemeanor trials, including the fastest “NOT GUILTY” verdict we have ever achieved for a client in any trial when the jury returned its verdict after less than ten minutes of deliberation. Do not take the first offer the prosecutor gives you, call Wagner and Lynch and see what all your options are.

DUI/DUID

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is when it is alleged that the accused drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) is when it is alleged that the accused drove a vehicle while under the influence of a specific drug. Although these are both misfeatures these types of cases tend to get their own classification as a result of the frequency this crime is alleged and the short and long-term affects this type of misdemeanor can have on one’s life. The statutory authority for DUI/DUID is found in Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is a common misconception that just because you take the state’s test, this would either be a breath test or blood test to determine a person’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), and the results are that the person has a BAC of .08 or higher than there is no defense to a DUI charge. This is not true. According to Title 57 Section 756, “Evidence that there was, at the time of the test, an alcohol concentration of eight-hundredths (0.08) or more shall be admitted as prima facie evidence that the person was under the influence of alcohol.” This means that your BAC may be potential evidence of being “under the influence”, but it is not conclusive, therefore you should always consult an attorney in regard to defenses. The results of Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) can also be used as evidence against an accused driver. SFSTs are “standardized,” which means they must be conducted in a precise and specific way for the testing to relay any results to the tester. The fact is that most law enforcement officers do not receive adequate training on how to conduct these tests, and often do so incorrectly which invalidate any resulting clues, or they commonly misinterpret the results of the test they are conducting. Further, it is not clear scientifically that any type of testing can relay to a law enforcement officer that someone is under the influence of an intoxicating substance other than alcohol “which may render such person incapable of safely driving or operating a motor vehicle.” Because the tests tend to either be scientifically questionable, or susceptible to operator error, we advise people to politely decline to take any test, SFSTs or breath/blood, if they have ingested any substances within hours of driving, regardless of how sober a person believes that they are. It is better to be arrested and provide little to no evidence to be used against you than to subject yourself to testing that may be inaccurate but still allowed by the court to be used against you. DUI/DUID charges are all predicate to a felony and can have serious long-term consequences, therefore you should ALWAYS consult an attorney if you have been charged with DUI/DUID. Finally, being charged with DUI/DUID can have negative effects administratively regarding your state-issued driver’s license. As a result of being arrested for DUI/DUID your driver’s license is subject to revocation, and if you do not act could result in your license being revoked for at least a year, leaving you without the ability to drive lawfully. At Wagner and Lynch, we also handle driver’s license revocations, and it is important to know that you only have 15 DAYS to either appeal the revocation and/or seek a modified driver’s license. That is a hard deadline and you should seek assistance and advice before that 15-day period has lapsed.

Criminal Felonies

A felony is a crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death. At Wagner and Lynch, we approach every felony filing as if it carries the consequence of a life sentence because it essentially does. A felony conviction is a designation that affects a person for life. The are very few ways that allow for one to set aside, or be relieved from having a felony record, therefore we treat every felony case as one that affects the rest of a client’s life. When it comes to felony cases, we are very practiced and experienced. We defend all categories of felony cases including property crimes, drug crimes, sex crimes, and all crimes against persons, up to and including Murder. There is no case Wagner and Lynch shy away from or tries to avoid. Also, we tend to be aggressive when it comes to defending these cases, and we use the tools that our state law gives us. In Oklahoma, you are entitled to what is called a ‘Preliminary Hearing or Examination” before a magistrate before one can face trial on a felony charge. In Oklahoma, we believe that Preliminary Hearings are so important that you can find it in the Oklahoma Constitution. A preliminary hearing can be waived only by the defendant (AN ATTORNEY CANNOT WAIVE A PRELIMINARY HEARING FOR YOU). At Wagner and Lynch we use these hearings to judge not only the viability of the state’s case at trial, but our own defense as well. A preliminary hearing is an extremely important right that the accused has in Oklahoma and is generally an integral part of how we put together a defense in your case. Wagner and Lynch have years of experience in trying felony cases to a jury in all jurisdictions and most of the 77 counties in Oklahoma. If you find yourself in a situation in which you are accused of a felony, you need experience more than anything on your side, and we have that. Our trial-orientated approach to criminal defense often results in great results for our clients including reducing felony charges to misdemeanors to outright dismissals.

POLICE MISCONDUCT/EXCESSIVE FORCE

The 4^th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects citizens from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” A search is obviously when a law enforcement officer goes through something of yours in which you have a privacy interest. The Constitution does not allow law enforcement officers to just conduct a search through your things whenever they want. Nor does the Constitution allow law enforcement to “seize” something of yours without reason. This also includes your body. Anytime a law enforcement officer uses their authority to stop you, or order you to do something, that is also a “seizure.” The Constitution is clear that a warrant based upon probable cause is required, and then other Constitutionally vetted state and federal laws may carve out some specific instances in which a law enforcement officer may conduct a search and/or seizure without a warrant, reasonably. Still, there are times when law enforcement officers exceed their authority, and every citizen should know what those are. At Wagner and Lynch, we pursue justice in these situations through civil action. You should consider calling Wagner and Lynch today and see if your interaction with law enforcement may result in a civil action, a recovery of monetary damages, or a reward.

State Action

Oklahoma does allow itself to be subject to a civil action for torts in some instances. These are covered under the Governmental Tort Claims Act which is in Title 51 of the Oklahoma Statutes. A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability. This is when you sue the government for money. In the context of this area of our practice at Wagner and Lynch, the government you would be suing would be the agency responsible for the officer(s) that commit the tort. For example, it would be the municipality if the officer was employed by a city police department, the county if the officer was employed as a deputy sheriff or district attorney’s investigator, or the state if the officer was a state employee, such as a state trooper, or agent for an administration. You do not have to be charged with a crime, or arrested to have a legitimate claim for a violation of your civil rights. An example of this would be a lawsuit that we brought on behalf of a client that was detained by police, but never charged. This client was at his place of employment when he was told by a supervisor to leave his workstation and meet with some police officers outside. Once outside the man was handcuffed and questioned by officers outside of their jurisdiction and without any lawful suspicion or cause to seize our client and subject him to questioning. We brought a claim against the municipality where those officers were employed, and upon disclosing the video of the unlawful actions of the officers, the insurance company settled the matter for a monetary amount that was satisfactory for our client. In all, he was only detained for less than ten minutes, but that detention was still a violation of our client’s civil rights. We also represent people who have experienced a violation of their rights and were still charged with a crime. Our approach is to defend the criminal allegation first, and if the facts are appropriate for a civil action, then we will advise our client o pursue that. For example, a client of ours was accosted by police officers in his own home, then dragged from his home, thrown onto the hood of a vehicle outside, and arrested for “Obstructing an Officer.” In this example, we successfully defended the criminal charge, which resulted in a dismissal. Despite being violently drug from his home, and slammed down by officers, our client did not suffer any real injury other than some contusions. Wagner and Lynch still pursued a tort action against the city that employed those officers and it resulted in a satisfactory settlement. In still other instances one might have suffered some injury while incarcerated in a county jail or detention center. In those cases, in which we have been retained, we have reached satisfactory settlements for our clients as well. In closing, if you have had an interaction with law enforcement and you think your rights were violated, you should consult us, you may have a case.

Federal Action

Title 42 of the U.S. Code, Section 1983, creates a civil action for depravation of a citizen’s civil rights in federal court. You can read the actual statute here. The language of the statute has been interpreted to allow victims of constitutional violations to sue state and local government officials for damages. In order to succeed on a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant acted under the color of state law, and (2) the defendant’s actions deprived the plaintiff of a right guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has determined that not all constitutional violations will give rise to a Section 1983 claim. A proper claim under the law must be must be “sufficiently egregious” such that it “shock(s) the conscience” or amounts to “conduct that deliberately disregards fundamental rights”. Although Section 1983 can be used to bring a suit for a violation of a wide range of Constitutional Rights, at Wagner and Lynch we focus on those cases involving misconduct on the part of law enforcement. If you think your interaction with law enforcement may have resulted in a violation of your civil rights to the degree that the actions of the officer would shock the conscience of the average person, give us a call today and let us determine if you have an actionable case.

The post More on Criminal Law first appeared on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

The post More on Criminal Law appeared first on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

More on Family Law

admin — Mon, 21 Aug 2023 18:33:44 +0000

Family Law encompasses a number of separate and distinct areas of practice. The most common types are divorce, paternity, guardianship (adult and minor), and adoptions, and also modifications to those types of cases/orders. Wagner and Lynch have practiced in these areas for over a decade each. The methods and manners in which we handle the cases are unique to each attorney, but what is common is that we take the time to get to know you and understand your issues and we are proactive in helping you achieve your goals. Many attorneys will talk to you, see what you want, and take what you give them to try to do it – we like to help you find new ways to communicate, set healthy boundaries, and manage your situation. It is a personal touch that is unique to our office and is a benefit to our clients.

Divorce

The Oklahoma divorce code is found in Title 43. Oklahoma is generally a “no-fault” state meaning that although you can file a divorce for specific reasons (adultery, impotency, abandonment, pregnancy outside of the marital couple, extreme cruelty, etc.) you can also file for simple incompatibility. Divorce cases are initiated with a Petition which lays out the reason for the divorce, the general nature of the marital estate, and matters related to children if applicable to address jurisdiction. Along with the Petition, an Automatic Temporary Injunction is entered which prevents either party from disposing of assets or canceling things without agreement or permission. If the case involves children, each parent is required to attend a co-parenting class. Although it has been historically believed that the mother would have primary custody of the child(ren) it is actually the policy of the state that parents should have equal access to the minor child(ren) absent good cause to do otherwise.

Paternity

Paternity cases address issues related to children born out of wedlock. These cases are usually filed in the county where the minor child(ren) resides though they may be filed elsewhere under certain circumstances, including tribal court (link to us). These types of cases generally follow divorce law and the UCCJEA as outlined in the divorce portion. Some of these cases require DNA testing, but not all. Additionally, some of these may be related to disestablishing another person.

Disestablishing paternity – if someone is an acknowledged, presumed, or adjudicated Father of the minor child(ren) there are VERY specific ways that you can change that. It is important to act quickly to do so that they all have timelines regarding when they can occur that are strictly followed.

Modification

Modification – almost all types of orders, other than those that address property issues may be reviewed by the Court and changed. The burdens for those changes differ. For child support issues those can be modified just due to a change in income. You can secure your co-parent’s income information annually under the state code. Other modifications can be based on the best interest of the child(ren) or changes in your circumstances or the circumstances of your co-parent.

Alimony

Alimony is permitted in Oklahoma divorce cases if the requesting party can demonstrate a need and the other party has the ability to provide the support. It is usually for a specific period of time and for a specific amount. Alimony can be terminated for voluntary cohabitation, marriage, and other reasons.

In Loco Parentis

In Loco Parentis – Oklahoma has recently recognized some parental rights for non-parents that have been given parental responsibility. These cases are very fact specific.

Guardianships

Guardianships are governed by Title 30. There are adult and minor guardianships. The Oklahoma Bar Association has a publication to help answer some questions on adult guardianships here and for minors here. The Indian Child Welfare Act also applies to minor guardianships and makes things MUCH more complicated and involved.

Adoptions

Adoptions can be joyous or devastating. These requirements for a contested adoption vary in their degree of difficulty based, in part, on if the child(ren) is eligible for membership in an Indian Tribe. If the biological parents are consenting there are very specific things the adoptive placement can and cannot do to help them. It is important to be very aware of those limitations. If the biological parents do not consent there are considerations in regard to the relationship of the adopting party to the minor child(ren), and if they have acted (or not acted) in a way that would make the child(ren) eligible for adoption without the consent of that parent. If you are a parent that someone is trying to adopt from and you do not consent there are some very specific ways you can improve your case. It is important to have sound legal advice at all stages of adoption (including pre-birth). Additionally, although Oklahoma recognizes the ability of same-sex couples to adopt, that is not necessarily true for tribes.

The post More on Family Law first appeared on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

The post More on Family Law appeared first on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

More on Civil Law

admin — Mon, 21 Aug 2023 18:33:09 +0000

Civil cases range from personal injury or car wreck, type cases all the way to small claims matters and everything in between. It is a general classification for a wide range of issues, many of which are handled by Wagner and Lynch. The court system is meant to be able to address grievances of all sorts. That does not mean that every lawyer can handle every case. We have a wide network of folks who handle issues that issues we do not – so whatever the issue, tort, property, contract, or small claims, we can help you out.

Personal Injury

You have all probably seen the commercials – if you or a loved one have been injured in a car wreck/tractor trailer wreck/heavy equipment/slip and fall – call us now! You just haven’t seen them from us. We handle injury cases that folks that know and trust us bring to us to help with. We provide a personal touch that is tempered with our vast experience. We have collected millions of dollars for people who were hurt due to the negligence or reckless disregard of others. Additionally, we have a referral network of people around the state and country that can help you if we cannot.

Contract Disputes

These range from hundreds of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars – and we have handled all types. Contracts are just agreements – usually reduced to writing – and addressed in Oklahoma code in Title 15 and other places. Disputes arise, generally, when one party or both breach or allegedly breach one of the terms. For items under $10,000, you can generally go to small claims court. These rules can be found in Title 12 beginning at section 1751. A lot of people try to handle these matters themselves, but that can be trouble. Additionally, if you are righteous in your claim and prevail – the losing party may be responsible for your attorney fees. For large disputes, you can’t use the small claims procedure and cases can be much more involved and time-consuming. For contracts involving real property and the sale of goods over $500, writing is required. The time for having counsel is not after you have a dispute, but when you are entering a contract. We can help make sure you are protected.

Probate

Property cases involve easements, adverse possession, partition, and quiet title suits to name a few. An easement is a written agreement for the use of a particular portion of land. Easements can be earned by purchase or transfer, implication, necessity, or prescription. All of these require different things and may require an attorney to draft them. For instance, an easement by implication can arise when someone sells a part of their property that is accessible by a portion that they did not sell. That creates a dominant and servant estate and an easement may be granted over the servant estate. An easement by prescription is a lot like an adverse possession. If you openly, notoriously, continually, and without permission use a road or occupy space, you may acquire the right to own the same or have an easement over the same. Partitions are where multiple people have shared ownership of something and it needs to be divided or sold and the proceeds divided. In addition to handling these matters in district court, we have handled several appellate issues where we have been successful including Reasnor v. Davis where we won our client’s interest in a piece of property and had the ruling affirmed, and Smith v. Medlock where we secured our client her ½ interest in a piece of property that she was denied access to.

The post More on Civil Law first appeared on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

The post More on Civil Law appeared first on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

Update On The Case Of Bryan Denny | Wagner & Lynch

admin — Fri, 20 Jan 2023 17:47:37 +0000

Former EOSC Instructor Accused of Removing Human Remains

So many have heard this story. When it first broke news organizations across the country filled their “Breaking News” reports with fantastical tales of a college instructor not only selling cocaine, but also unlawfully being in possession of human remains. As the internet and social media postings speculated and debated the terrible extent to where this would all surely lead, Kara Bacon of the Choctaw Tribal Prosecution office did nothing to quell the flames of an out-of-control fire they set the match she and her office set a match to.

On August 31, 2022, a man that had spent 44 years of his life building a reputation as first a law enforcement officer, and then an instructor to future law enforcement officers, had his name dragged through the mud form Laredo Texas to the Big Apple and back. Yesterday those salacious allegations were put to the test at a preliminary hearing, and failed miserably. The question is, “Will the news of that result ever make a single headline?”.

On September 1, 2022 Eastern Oklahoma State College Police Chief Alton Jones sought a search warrant for the Apartment of Bryan Denny. The search warrant was for the suspicion that Mr. Denny had marijuana in his apartment on campus. Armed with this warrant officers swarmed and searched the apartment along with Choctaw Tribal Officer Cody Donoley.

According to these officers they would found evidence of cocaine residue in four plastic baggies, and guns the tribal prosecutors would later claim were being used during the commission of felony distribution of drugs. While conducting the search and rifling through Mr. Denny’s private property they came across what appeared to be a bone of some kind. Officer Donoley photographed the item and sent a picture of it via his cell phone to an OSBI agent that confirmed it to be a human jaw bone and to be an artifact. That last part is very important.

Donoley next consulted with Kara Bacon at the Choctaw Nation Prosecutor’s Office, and Mr. Denny was charged with three felonies and one misdemeanor and had to post a heavy bond. The charges were Possession with intent to distribute cocaine, Unlawful removal of a dead body, Possession of Marijuana (Misd.), and Possession of a firearm while committing the felony of Distribution of Cocaine. It was the third count that would set a trail across the country of accusation that left Mr. Denny without a career or the reputation he had spent a lifetime building. The worst part is that it should have never ever happened.

Read Between The Lines

A quick reading of the law would show even a non-attorney that Mr. Denny should never have been charged with removal of a dead body. Much of the Choctaw tribal code mirrors many Oklahoma state statutes. The crime of removing a dead body is virtually the same in the state statute found at Oklahoma Title 21 Section 1161 as it is in the Tribal Criminal Code, also at Section 1161. It goes like this: “No person shall intentionally remove the dead body of a human being or any part thereof from the initial site where such dead body is located for any purpose”.

Right away I’m sure most of you recognize this as a law against ghoulish behavior such as grave robbing. Intentionally taking something from the “initial site”. As the OSBI agent Officer Donoley consulted said, this item appeared to be an artifact. There is certainly no evidence to suggest it was taken from its initial site by my client intentionally, or unlawfully. So, there must be a perfectly good explanation for this, right?

There is, and the Choctaw Nation Prosecutor’s Office received that explanation in writing from the owner of the artifact before Bryan Denny possessed it on September 9, 2023. This was after Mr. Denny’s name was splashed all over the New York Post for being a likely ghoul. The letter was from Danny Denny, Bryan’s father. He explained in detail the origin of the artifact as it was known to him. He explained his family’s Native American heritage, and how he grew up on a farm near Hoyt, Oklahoma just a stone’s throw from the South Canadian River. Danny explained that his father (Theron Denny) was injured when a horse fell on him and broke his back, while Danny was still in high school. The injury left him unable to work, but the proud man that he was he refused to just sit and wallow in his disability. He took long walks along the river, and one day came across what appeared to be a petrified piece of human jawbone. He took it to law enforcement and even a county commissioner at the time, and to a man they all agreed that it looked very old and was likely an artifact from the peoples who originally inhabited this area.

What was just something Theron Denny kicked up during a walk along the river became a family heirloom with an interesting story and mystery attached to it. The bone would be gifted to Danny Denny who would eventually gift it to his son Bryan in the same old shoebox Theron first placed it in after its discovery.

Exaggerating The Story

Despite having this letter days after deciding to charge Mr. Denny and allow the internet to label him a ghoul, grave robber, possible murderer, cannibal, and whatever other crazy rabbit holes folks turned down on social media because of the headline the Choctaw Prosecutors wanted, they did nothing. Since August 31, 2023 Bryan Denny has had to live his life publicly as an armed drug dealer that probably killed someone and kept their jaw bone as a trophy. On January 18, 2023 we show up to court to see the evidence that supports this and instead got a whole bunch of nothing.

The case was called and the Tribe put Chief Alton Jones on the stand. After the tribe concluded it’s direct-examination I began my cross-examination. I asked a very simple question, “Did you find evidence that Mr. Denny was distributing or selling ANY drugs? Cocaine or anything?” The answer from the Chief that conducted the search and wrote the report that the Choctaw Tribal Prosecutor’s Office relied on when they charged my client as a drug dealer, said, “No.” I pressed and the officer testified under oath that he did not find any evidence of distribution or selling of drugs, nor did he think that Mr. Denny committed such a crime. I asked why Mr. Denny’s gun was seized and he was charged with possessing a firearm while committing the crime of selling drugs if he (Chief Jones), did not think he was selling drugs. Chief Jones explained that it was Tribal Officer Donoley’s idea to seize the guns.

Uncovering The Truth

Later another officer would testify that the baggies they allegedly found containing cocaine, actually only contained residue or dust which the said field tested for cocaine. It turns out that the OSBI lab report would reveal that of the items submitted by the officers ,32 grams of marijuana was found and some residue of cocaine that could not be weighed (so it would have to be a total weight of less than a hundredth of a gram). Of course, neither the lab or the Tribe could or would produce any evidence that these things belonged to Mr. Denny other than that they were found in his apartment during their search. Despite arguing at Mr. Denny’s bond hearing that his bond should be set high because of the “large amount” of drugs found, the tribe made little effort to put on a case after their lead witness testified that he found no evidence of selling drugs and the lab report showed that so little was allegedly found.

As for the remains, all that was presented was the officer testifying that it was found. That’s all the tribe would offer. They didn’t acknowledge the letter they had had in their possession since September, or even done the decent thing and dismissed that allegation long ago, instead they allowed the hearing to go forward at their tribal members expense, and offered nothing. Despite arguing at Mr. Denny’s bond hearing that his bond should be set high because of the “large amount” of drugs found, the tribe made little effort to put on a case after their lead witness testified that he found no evidence of selling drugs and the lab report showed that so little was allegedly found.

The charges of Possession of Cocaine with the intent to distribute was amended to possession of cocaine (dust), and the charges of removing a dead body and possessing a firearm while committing a felony were dismissed at the conclusion of the hearing.

Hopefully those with power will never be so irresponsible to charge you with crimes you never should have been charged with, and the subject matter of such allegations is so salacious that the story surrounding it goes viral and your reputation is destroyed on a national level, but if you do find yourself in such a situation, call us at Wagner & Lynch, we actually have experience in handling that situation along with so many others.

The post Update On The Case Of Bryan Denny | Wagner & Lynch first appeared on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

The post Update On The Case Of Bryan Denny | Wagner & Lynch appeared first on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

Case Dismissed!- We Need Justice Reform

admin — Wed, 07 Dec 2022 19:31:28 +0000

CASE DISMISSED!

Today James Stephens (pictured here with Brecken) left the Pittsburg County Courthouse without anything hanging over his head. Prior to today Mr. Stephens was facing prosecution for one count of Obstruction an Officer and Resisting Arrest.

On the 19th of October Mr. Stephens was in his home and not bothering anyone, when a McAlester Animal Control officer beat on the side of his home. Mr. Stephens came to the door and was asked about an animal that may have been involved in a biting incident earlier that day. Mr. Stephens, somewhat irritated that the officer beat on the side of his house rather than just knocking on his door, informed the officer that the owner of the animal lived next door, where the animal also resided. When asked to answer more questions he refused and shut his door. The Animal Control officer immediately called McAlester Police Department. He would eventually be arrested and charged with obstruction and resisting.

On hiring Wagner & Lynch, Brecken immediately requested the body camera footage from that day. What was contained in the video was appalling to say the least, and it is our intention to release it in the near future.

What Really Happened

Officers Tucker Curry and Warner Bedford arrive on scene first. As Officer Bedford is approaching the house, he spits a glob of chewing tobacco on Mr. Stephens property. You next see Mr. Stephens open the door before Officer Curry can knock and ask, “Ok, who did that? Who spit?”. When Officer Bedford admits that he is the one that did, Mr. Stephens orders him to leave from his property. Officer Curry begins asking Mr. Stephens about the animal that belongs to a neighbor. Mr. Stephens tells the officers that, “No”, he will not speak with them, they acknowledge this with and “Ok”, and he begins to close his door.

It is at this point both officers force their way into his home, fight with him, grab him and drag him out of his home. They next slam him on a vehicle in the yard and begin to wrench his hands, which are behind his back, up behind his head in a clear effort to cause him pain. The officers continue to tell Mr. Stephens to stop resisting when they are the only ones making movement.

Brecken showed the video footage to the District Attorney’s office because at the time of filing they only had the officer’s sworn affidavit as to what occurred, and not the video footage of exactly what happened. Based upon their review of that footage, and the case overall, the Pittsburg County District Attorney’s office dismissed this matter today with the notation “In the interest of justice” written into the court’s order.

Today was surely a day of relief and maybe even a little happiness for Mr. Stephens, but his road has been difficult and there is no reason to think it won’t remain so in the foreseeable future. The psychological effect from men forcing their way into your home, and dragging you out by force, only to throw you in a cage, is more than scary, it damages people. Add to that, the person was within their right. You can say “No!”. Then, the damage is surely only exacerbated.

We Need Reform

Even today after securing his dismissal Mr. Stephens said that he was afraid to be in his own home. Imagine being in your home and enduring the torture of thinking that at any moment some government agents could show up, and drag you away to jail. He lives with those frightening thoughts every day since this happened, because the day it did happen was the first time Mr. Stephens ever thought something like that could happen.

Wagner & Lynch is still investigating this matter, and if you believe that you may have any relevant information about this incident or those involved, please contact our office and someone will take that information from you.

We need reform.

The post Case Dismissed!- We Need Justice Reform first appeared on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

The post Case Dismissed!- We Need Justice Reform appeared first on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

WHAT A GREAT STORY ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

admin — Mon, 07 Nov 2022 20:29:32 +0000

In this picture is a client (Eddie Brown) that I (Brecken Wagner) have never met, but I fought for his freedom as I would have for myself. I was approached through family members about Eddie’s situation in late 2021. Eddie was serving time in Memphis in regard to some charges that he pled guilty to.

At the time of Eddie’s plea, he had several prior felony convictions in Pittsburg County that would play a part in the sentencing range the judge could sentence him to. A couple of those convictions were from over twenty years ago for possession of controlled dangerous substance. Eddie, like many Oklahomans has battled addiction in his life. His addiction has cost his many times over throughout his life, and it has been the highest contributing factor to his criminal behavior.

State Question 780

Prior to Oklahoma passing State Question 780 in 2016, simple possession of any controlled dangerous substance other than marijuana, was a felony on any first offense and by the time you have two prior convictions for simple possession a person would be facing life in prison. In Oklahoma, we used to send people to prison, in some cases for life, for being addicted to drugs. Families like Eddie Brown’s suffered under these draconian laws for decades. We will never fully understand the toll that these misguided laws and subsequent ranges of punishment has had on the Oklahoma family, but one can assume that impact on minorities has been especially devastating. That was certainly the case for Eddie Brown’s family that loved him despite what things the government accused him of.

The Cost of Addiction

As a result of those state felony convictions Eddie received for suffering from the disease of addiction, Eddie’s sentence in federal prison was quite a deal longer than it would have been without those convictions. He was set to be released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 2027.

By the time I was approached in 2021, the citizens of Oklahoma, not the Oklahoma legislature, had passed State Question 780, and as a result all cases of simple possession were now misdemeanors. The new law that was passed was also retroactive, and that would have an impact on Eddie’s case. By being retroactive, that means that this new law would apply to all previous convictions, and those felonies would now be misdemeanors. If Eddie’s convictions for possession would have been misdemeanors instead of felonies, then Eddie’s time in prison would be significantly less,so much so, that Eddie might be eligible to get out now, and not have to wait until 2027.

I went to work filing motions to dismiss in state court to reverse the felony status of the convictions. Our hope was that this would cause for his federal sentence to be amended, because his pre sentencing report would have to be retroactively amended. I personally thought it was a longshot, and every attorney that I talked to told me that they didn’t think the Federal Government would recognize the retroactive correction.

Eddie never gave up. He called and emailed me many times, pushing me to keep moving forward. I have to admit that Eddie is just as responsible for the success of this case as I am. Without his persistence, I can’t say I had much faith that the government would do the right thing. It’s easy to become cynical when you are disappointed over and over again by how those in power don’t seem to always follow a universal and equal set of rules, and instead conform thelaw to meet their agenda. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is a perfect example of this.

It Worked!

It did work, and Eddie walked out of FCI Memphis on October 18. That’s almost four years that he gets to hug his family, and love on his grandkids, instead of sitting in a cell and counting the days. That’s four more years that Eddie gets to go to work everyday and be a productive member of society. This picture was taken last Wednesday, October 20, and it was also Eddie’s first day on his new job. Doesn’t he look proud?

I saw Eddie’s daughter today and she shared all this wonderful news with me. She told me how much he wants to come by and meet me and thank me, but he just hasn’t had a chance yet. I am busting with pride that Eddie hasn’t had a chance to come see me yet, and instead has used his first days since leaving federal prison to hug and kiss his family, and start a new job. The fact that Eddie is doing those things and not staring at a cinderblock wall, having served his time for the crime he had committed, but must serve additional time for being an addict in Oklahoma prior to 2016, is the greatest thank you I could ever get. Also…criminal justice reform works, and it’s a damn good thing too.

***NOTE*** What our officedid in this case was novel and unprecedented. To our knowledge this is the first time this was ever done in Oklahoma or any other state. Extra shoutouts are in order for Tanya Turner (Office Manager/Paralegal) and Cassie Spence (Criminal Law Paralegal) for their hard work and dedication.

The post WHAT A GREAT STORY ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM first appeared on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

The post WHAT A GREAT STORY ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM appeared first on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

WAKING UP IN HELL: The Story of the Trials of Brenda Burdue Savage

admin — Thu, 25 Aug 2022 18:21:20 +0000

Part One- “The State of Oklahoma vs…”

I couldn’t believe it; they were going to quit.

I learned at a very young age that quitting was just not something I was ever going to do much of. I was always being told, and up until at least 1st Grade actually believed that “can’t” wasn’t a real word. This is because my father would never hesitate to instruct me that ‘can’t ain’t a word, cause ‘can’t’ ain’t ever done nothing for nobody”, on the rare occasion that I would utter it. Here I was sitting in a courtroom in Pittsburg County Oklahoma on the 14th of January, 2020, far removed from my childhood years, and participating in a First-Degree Murder trial. I was watching, grown-ups, attorneys working for the Pittsburg County District Attorney’s Office, get all mad and want to quit. All I could do was shake my head in disbelief

***Author’s note*** This story is told through the recollection of the author. I have tired my best to recall all of these events with accuracy. I have used transcripts, notes, reports, videos, audio recordings, interviews, and my own personal memory to piece together the events as they occurred over the course of this case. -Brecken A. Wagner

January 2020 was not that long ago, but it sure feels that way as I write this today. There was so much we all didn’t know. So many things were lined up and ready to come right at all of us, our client, this firm (Wagner & Lynch), Oklahomans, Americans, and humanity. In just a few short months the world would be changed by the Covid-19 Pandemic, an election and an aftermath that still leaves our nation divided to this day, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that would change the entire criminal justice system in Eastern Oklahoma, and so much more. As a firm we had no idea that this case would become what it did, one of the greatest trials we all have ever had the opportunity to be a part of. This is the story of the trial of Brenda Burdue Savage, a woman from Texas who was accused of shooting and killing a well known and beloved local resident named Bart Jameson of McAlester Oklahoma.

Eventually Brenda Savage would face a jury in the United States Federal District Court of Eastern Oklahoma, but you can’t tell that story without telling about how she first faced trial in the State District Court in Pittsburg County Oklahoma. It all started early on the morning of Wednesday January 30th, 2019.

Blake Lynch took Anthony Savage’s frantic call that morning. By 8 AM that morning Anthony had already called a few times and left messages, when Blake called him back, he was worried about his wife. She was being held in the Pittsburg County jail and they were telling Anthony it was for murder. That made no sense to Anthony and he couldn’t understand. Blake helped him gain his composure and then started making calls to find out what there was, if anything, to Anthony’s concerns. Blake learned quickly that in fact Anthony was right and Brenda was at the County Jail, and she was being held for murder. Blake acted quickly and before long he had already met with Brenda at the jail and was negotiating a bond recommendation with the Adam Scharn, the First Assistant District Attorney.

Blake had a good argument for a lower bond, Brenda Savage was in her fifties, had been married for over thirty years, and had never been accused of anything more serious than a minor traffic violation. The state was still claiming that their story was coming together, but that they believed Brenda had gone to the home of a man named Patrick Dunlap in the early hours of January 30th, and while there shot and killed another man, Bart Jameson with a nine-millimeter pistol that belonged to her. It was suggested to Blake at the time that Mr. Dunlap and another man, Truman Kenieutubbe, (both friends of the deceased Mr. Jameson), were present and witnessed Ms. Savage shoot Bart Jameson.

THE GOVERNMENT’S VERSION OF EVENTS (SORT OF)

Brenda Savage was drinking a beer at a local bar called the Valley Inn. Brenda, a resident of Texas was here in McAlester with her husband of nearly thirty years, Anthony Savage. Anthony was the safety inspector for a company that was building wind farms in the area, and because his job was going to keep him away from their home in Texas for so long, the couple rented a home in the McAlester area for the time that Anthony’s job would keep him here. On the evening of January 29th, Brenda had first gone to the casino, and from there she found herself at the Valley Inn.

While at the Valley Inn she was drinking beer and talking to other patrons. She talked with one man about gun. She was an avid shooter and Anthony and her had gotten into shooting competitions, and when they traveled, they always brought their competition pistols with them. Brenda continued to mingle while at the Valley and eventually struck up a conversation with Patrick Dunlap and Bart Jameson.

At one point Branda got into a disagreement with another female patron causing the bartender, Darla, to step in. Brenda would later get into it with Darla herself when she questioned the receipt Darla gave her. Darla told her to pay and get out, to which Brenda advised the bartender in the most out-of-towner way possible, that she could buy the bar if she so desired, and that she had more money than anybody in there. Darla next threatened to call the police if she didn’t pay and leave, and that’s exactly what Brenda did.

As Brenda was leaving, she was invited by one of the three friends to come with them back to Patrick’s house for some more beer and conversation. Despite the late hour, and how little she knew the three men, she accepted. Bart and Truman left together in Bart’s truck, while Patrick got into Brenda’s car to drive her to his house.

Patrick and Brenda arrived first. Bart and Truman were tasked with stopping by a convenience store before it became too late to buy beer. Patrick excused himself briefly, changed clothing, then talked with Brenda in the kitchen as they waited on the others to arrive.

Bart and Truman did arrive, and as he was walking into the house, Truman dropped the 12-pack of Bud Light bottles and a couple broke when the box hit the concrete porch. The three cleaned up the beers and started up with some small talk in the kitchen.

From this point forward, the versions (they tend to change over the course of this case) of events as told by Patrick and Truman do start to change and confuse the narrative. According to Patrick, Brenda never left the kitchen, but at some point, her nine-millimeter pistol appeared in the room. Patrick (a convicted felon) claims that the pistol was unloaded by Bart and left on the table. It is after this that he goes into the living room to put some music on the television.

While he is in the living room putting music on the television, Bart is walking in front of the TV when Patrick claims that hears a loud pop, and Bart falls to the floor, bleeding. Patrick says that he turned to see Brenda standing in the door frame, holding the pistol in her hand. According to Patrick, he goes to give Bart aid, stopping only to call 911. Patrick never claims that an argument or ill words of any kind occurred. At one point Patrick also describes seeing the pistol he claims was used to kill Bart, on the same coffee table in the living room where he is sitting right before Bart is shot. Yet, he claims he did not bring the gun in there, or does he know how it got in there, or how it picked itself up off the table and got into Brenda’s hand on the other side of the room.

Officer Danny McHenry arrives on the scene while Patrick is still on the phone with 911. At first Officer McHenry finds nothing. He approaches the front door and knocks. What McHenry doesn’t know is that Bart Jameson is on the other side of that door, bleeding from a gunshot wound. McHenry starts to go around the house and as he rounds the corner, Truman throws his hands up in the air, and Patrick (who is on the phone with the 911 dispatcher) yells to McHenry that “She shot him!”. McHenry sees a very intoxicated woman leaning up against the wall near the door. The woman is Brenda Savage, and upon seeing McHenry she slurs the words that were recorded on his body camera and sealed her fate, “Yeah, I shot him.” As McHenry is getting his bearings and asking the dispatcher to send an ambulance, Ms. Savage speaks again and this time she slurs “Oh you don’t need an ambulance, he’s dead.”

Meanwhile, Patrick is wailing about his friend being shot, and that this “bitch” shot him in cold blood. Truman has since put his hands down, but he continues to tell Patrick to “chill out”. McHenry starts to make his way into the small home to look for Bart Jameson, but as he enters the house he is followed very closely by the strangely acting woman. She tells the officer that those guys out there are crazy and makes a gesture with her eyes toward their direction. She asks McHenry if she can stay with him. Officer McHenry does the right thing and takes Brenda back out on to the porch and tells her to stay their while he goes to render aid to Bart. Other officers began to arrive on the scene as Officer McHenry unsuccessfully keeps trying to revive Mr. Jameson, only stopping when relieved by paramedics.

Brenda is taken into custody by Eli Hass of the McAlester Police Department on suspicion of murder. Truman and Patrick remain there on scene until officers finish their evidence collection and investigation over the next couple of hours. Detective Don Hass arrived on scene and began to manage the investigation. Attempts were made to get a statement from Truman, but he was too drunk, and unable to write anything down, and Mr. Dunlap wasn’t much better, but they both claimed that Brenda Savage had just shot Bart Jameson for no reason and without any warning. Both Truman and Patrick were noted to be highly intoxicated, and the blood alcohol content in Bart’s blood would later show that he too was very intoxicated, more than twice the legal limit.

Brenda was taken to the jail and left in a holding cell. A few hours later she was brought to an interview room where Don Hass appeared and began to read her the “Miranda” warnings. As he began to read them to her, she started to slide down the wall, slowly at first and then faster until she collapsed on the floor. Detective Hass considered her too intoxicated to give a statement. Instead, he would rely on her words in his report, that she had said, “I shot him.” The case against Brenda Savage was essentially opened and shut in the early morning hours of January 30, 2019.

IT STARTS HITTING THE FAN EARLY

The bond negotiations started nearly the moment Anthony hired our office to represent his wife. First, Blake went out to meet with Brenda. She was not just scared, but really confused. She explained to Blake that she had no idea how she had gotten there. She described waking up and hurting all over. Brenda, in her fifties, had also suffered from many back problems and had and recently recovered from back surgery. The first feeling that came to her when she realized she was in a jail cell was shame. She reasoned that after she left the bar, she must have been pulled over and arrested for DUI. She didn’t feel like she had drunk too much, she remembered being careful, but she also had zero memory of leaving the bar. Had she stayed and drank to the point she must have blacked out and tried to drive home? Anthony was going to be so disappointed.

She saw what appeared to be a shiny steel speaker box on the wall in front of her. There on the box was a little button. She pressed it and after a few seconds a voice screeched out from the noise of feedback, “Yeah? What?”, the box asked. Brenda leaned in and asked the box why she was here.

“You’re being charged with First Degree Murder,” the box said flatly. Brenda recalls being to stunned to the point of being unable to cry. What was this nightmare?

Brenda was not much help to Blake. She had no memory of leaving the bar that night, yet we knew that she did leave with those three men. We had a woman leaving a bar late at night with three men, being intoxicated to the point of losing her memory in a very short period of time. All signs pointed to her being drugged, and assuming that law enforcement followed the most basic of investigative procedures when a firearm has been discharged, and someone is shot, and alcohol is present, that a blood draw or screening of some kind must have taken place. That test might be able to determine not only her blood alcohol content from the evening before, but also whether there was anything else in her system.

Blake left the jail with all kinds of questions, but he also knew he needed to get her out of the jail as soon as possible, and she was currently being held on a bond of one million dollars. Blake reached out to Adam Scharn, the First Assistant District Attorney and began to ask about lowering the bond by agreement. Bond is not meant to be a punishment, but instead an incentive that a person will appear in court. Our criminal justice system recognizes that those accused are innocent until and only until they enter a plea of guilt or after their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and punitive bonds are actually forbidden under the law, specifically by the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Blake and Adam discussed how Brenda had never been accused, let alone convicted, of any crime more serious than a traffic ticket. That, and given the fact that Brenda had already hired an attorney, and was invested in fighting the charges against her rather than running away, led the pair to agree that a bond of $100,000.00 was reasonable.

Brenda’s family was able to post her bond and get out the following day. While she left Oklahoma to return home in Texas, we got to work. Blake started filing motions for discovery and trying to get his hands on every bit of information that he could. We were looking for not only things that we expected to see in the investigation, like fingerprint analysis, ballistics reports, scene reconstruction, toxicology, Medical Examiner report, the lead detective’s report, body camera footage, and so many other things that are standard in any homicide investigation. The lead detective in this case was Don Hass, who had decades of experience as a law enforcement officer and at the time headed up the detective division for the McAlester police department.

One thing that came up early on in this case, and would later prove to be very significant to our theory was the state of Brenda’s car that morning. Blake accompanied the Savages as they went to recover Brenda’s vehicle from impound. The vehicle had been processed (according to the detective division) and was available to be released back to Brenda and Anthony. Blake noticed immediately that something was not right about the state of the car. He expected to see things out of place, and as if it had been searched, but this seemed different. These officers really threw things around in the car and went through items in what looked like a hurry. Also, there were so many handprints on the exterior of the car, all around the passenger door. With all of that seeming so odd, Blake documented it just in case it might be of importance later, and it would be.

Things did start to trickle in, but it was the lack of things we expected to see that began to concern us. We weren’t seeing those reports and evidence collection that we were expecting. One of the things we did receive somewhat unexpectedly from the jail was the clothing that Brenda had been wearing the night she was arrested. After confirming with the jail that these clothes had been preserved and untouched since that night, Blake saw an opportunity for us to examine some of the evidence ourselves. He had a staff member place the clothing into a sealed cardboard box to protect the integrity of the evidence. Next, one of our paralegals kept the box locked in her office until we could secure the services of an expert in gun powder residue. Gun Powder Residue or more commonly referred to as “GSR” is the tiny metallic fragments that are expelled from a firearm when it is fired. These tiny fragments, invisible to the naked eye, would be expected to be found on Brenda’s clothing if in fact she had fired the weapon. This would have also been one of those standard investigative tools for law enforcement to get to the truth of a matter if they are actually interested in doing so. However, based on the lack of any investigation we were seeing early in the process, it was assumed that Det. Hass had likely not requested such a test on Brenda or the other two potential shooters, and we should at least perform one on our client to see if she could be ruled out as the one that pulled the trigger.

After some searching and with the help of lawyer friends around the country, our office was able to settle on Richard Ernest. Mr. Ernest is the owner and founder of Alliance Forensics Laboratory Inc., in Keller Texas and one of the foremost experts on firearms in the world. He has worked on many high-profile cases and is very well known in the forensics community. When he agreed to work on our case, we knew we had something special. When he told us that his analysis revealed that Brenda Savage did not likely discharge any firearm, while wearing the clothes she was wearing that night, we knew we had something even more special, an innocent person accused of murder.

THERE’S ALWAYS TWO SIDES

Bart Jameson was well liked, and he came from a large family that was shocked to their core with grief when he died. Bart’s brothers, one of which is a twin, took the news of his death especially hard, and it wasn’t long before the stage of grief they mostly settled on was anger. We would later come to know that the anger was exacerbated by the McAlester Police Department and District Attorney Chuck Sullivan. According to a family member, when one of the brothers met with Detective Don Hass and Chuck Sullivan the morning, his brother was killed, he was told that Brenda Savage made a complete confession and that she claimed she had shot Bart just to watch him die.

Naturally the brother reported this false and extremely volatile bit of news to the rest of the family which reacted in a surge of terrible grief and anger that anyone could have seen coming. Their beloved son, brother, cousin, uncle, and friend was taken from them and just because some stranger, some sick person wanted to watch him die? As a result of this unconscionable and terrible decision to mislead this family by Sullivan and Hass, the family and their supporters took to social media with innuendos that eventually just morphed into outright threats. The family was so angry that Brenda had even been given a bond amount, let alone one that she could post. They took their displeasure to the street and protested in front of the courthouse about the low bond that was allowed for a stone-cold killer like Brenda Savage.

It became so bad that our office began collecting internet postings, threats, and discussions in the event that we would need to file a motion for change of venue (which we eventually would). With each hearing and each appearance, the rhetoric and vitriol would increase and get scarier and scarier, eventually leading to a court showdown with Blake subpoenaing the social media accounts of one of the brothers in particular.

PROCEEDING TO TRIAL

The preliminary hearing would fist be scheduled for early June of 2019, but would have to be continued at the request of the state because of some witness issues. The hearing would take place in Mid-July, and only Patrick Dunlap and Officer McHenry would provide testimony of what happened that night.

Patrick would end up helping the defense before it was over. Blake, cross-examined Patrick and had him give as much detail as possible from what he recalled that night. Through Patrick, Blake was able to establish that Brenda was supposed to have shot Bart while standing slightly behind the couch, and in the door frame that separates the kitchen and living room where it is claimed Bart was shot. This is significant because it created yet another physical issue for the state’s story to be true.

The gun that was used to shoot Bart was a nine-millimeter handgun, and the casing is thrown from the gun to the right and behind the person shooting. This is because this is a right-handed firearm and it is designed that way. If Brenda was standing where Patrick claims she was when Bart was shot, then the shell casing should have ejected from the gun and landed either somewhere on the couch or behind it (there was a gap between it and the wall). Instead, the casing was found in the corner of the room to the left. This means the metal casing would have to have traveled back and to the right, stopped in the air and then flew the opposite direction, behind and to the left of the shooter. This created even more doubt that Brenda was the shooter; and given that the police were never able to find the bullet that killed Bart (it went through and through), or a defect in the wall or the tv he was supposedly standing in front of when he was shot, the story that Brenda had just walked into the living room raised the pistol and shot Bart to watch him die was getting more and more less likely as even a possibility of what happened. This was just one of the things that came up at the preliminary hearing, but for those that were really listening and paying attention, Blake was conducting a master class on how to get a bad story out of a bad storyteller.

The more Patrick kept talking the more inconsistencies kept coming. Truman had told officers that Brenda and Patrick were standing outside when he and Bart pulled up, Patrick testifies at the preliminary hearing that he and Brenda went inside where he first changed clothes and then they visited in the kitchen until Truman and Bart arrived. Truman told officers the gun appeared as soon as he and Bart arrived, but Patrick testifies at the hearing that Brenda and the three other men were all visiting inside in the tiny kitchen, when Brenda suddenly disappeared then reappeared minutes later with a gun.

On one of the body cameras worn by Officer Eli Hass on the night of the shooting, Patrick tells Officer Hass that Brenda unloaded the gun in the kitchen. Later that same night both Truman and Patrick claim to have unloaded the gun in the kitchen, and still later that same night Patrick tells Detective Don Hass (Eli’s father) that Bart unloaded the gun in the kitchen. This is later repeated by Truman in a written statement that is attributed to him and prepared by Detective Hass. Then, at the preliminary hearing Patrick testifies under oath that Brenda dropped the magazine and Bart unchambered the round that was in the gun.

*********We will stop here. Please look for the conclusion of WAKING UP IN HELL: The Story of the Trials of Brenda Burdue Savage

The post WAKING UP IN HELL: The Story of the Trials of Brenda Burdue Savage first appeared on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

The post WAKING UP IN HELL: The Story of the Trials of Brenda Burdue Savage appeared first on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

FROM THE ROAD

admin — Fri, 03 Jun 2022 18:55:10 +0000

FROM THE ROAD

Yesterday I was in Boley Oklahoma visiting a client that is being held at the John H. Lilley Correctional facility. As you drive up 62 Highway out of Okemah it is the bright blue water tower that serves the prison that first greets you on your approach to one of Oklahoma’s greatest historic treasures, the Town of Boley.

Boley was established as an African-American settlement and at one time was one of the most successful black towns in the United States. It served as a model of post-reconstruction negro capitalism and success. The campus I was visiting yesterday was first erected as a sanitarium for the treatment of African-Americans afflicted with Tuberculosis.

In 1927 it was reestablished as a school for African-American boys that were labeled delinquent or incorrigible. It’s important to remember that this is also during a time in our history as a state and a nation that young African-American boys were considered delinquent and incorrigible, and in the eyes of far too many, deserving of death by lynching if they just happened to look at a white girl, or not refer to a white man as “Sir”.

The man that established the school was John H. Lilley, a teacher who would become the school’s first superintendent. Lilley is described on the Oklahoma DOC website as follows: “JLCC I named for the school’s first superintendent, John H. Lilley whose dedication to, and love for, its children was widely known.” Lilley died in a car crash in 1933 and is buried near the entrance.

Listen to how the school is described in a State Commission of Charities and Corrections report from around the time the school was established: “A school building is badly needed, also a workshop or an Industrial Building. There is every need thereof Vocational Education if we are to help these boys so that they will be prepared to make an honest living when they are released from school.”

I also found this article from The Okemah Daily Leader circa. April 1946 and it described conditions at the school as excited and proud writing: “Upon arriving at the institution each boy is permitted to choose the department in which he would like to work. It is the aim of each department to make each boy fit to return to society and to arm him with a trade with which to make a justifiable living.”

You can almost see Lilley’s vision for his boy’s school coming into exactly what he hoped for. John Lilley ran a school that likely saved the lives of so many young boys that would have otherwise found themselves in prison or dead and hanging from a tree. In 1964 the school would be integrated and Lilley’s vision for a place of learning and reformation would be extended to boys of every racial make-up, and it would remain that way until 1983.

In 1983 America was changing rapidly. By this point, it had been a decade since President Nixon had first declared a “War on Drugs”. As America was entering an election presidential election cycle, rhetoric over drugs and crime, which we now know were clear dog whistles to white voters in order to gain their vote through fear of a rise of minorities gaining political power and influence, was a major topic among state and local politicians.

Governor George Nigh signed legislation that year to end the school and convert the campus into a prison. Oklahoma was not different from other states in how it ramped up the building of new prisons in the 1980s, which would eventually lead way to the creation of private prisons and the creation of an overall incarceration for-profit complex. Oklahoma would be unique in regard to the fervency that it would incarcerate its citizens over the years and by 2016 lead not just the United States in its rate of incarceration per capita, but the entire world. Statistically speaking Oklahoma would lead the world by significant numbers in its incarceration of women, and impact the regular family unit in the state in ways that it will likely never recover. Nobody has more grandparents or non-biological parents raising children than the state of Oklahoma.

In 1983 when the government in Oklahoma City decided that the boy’s school would be the site of the next state prison facility, the citizens of Boley rejected the proposal. The citizens claimed that the prison would be a blight on their historically significant town. The residents didn’t see anything good that would come from having a prison in their community, and they would be proven correct.

I visited the town of Boley just after my meeting. I drove down the same street that was once lined with mercantile and trade and the everyday buzz of townspeople and dealmakers. Old black and white photos of the town’s former success and pride are not hard to find, even with the most non-descriptive Google search. However, that is not how Boley looks today. I took a picture of the water tower that sways lightly over the main commercial street in Boley, and when compared, stands in stark contrast to the fresh blue paint of the water tower at the prison, just down the road. I stood in the middle of the road on the main commercial street in the town and took a picture in both directions. Not a single car drove up that road during the entire time I stood there. As I stood there and looked around me at the old brick buildings, collapsing in on themselves from neglect, I could still imagine a time when this street was bustling with life and progress.

As I walked to my car, I wondered how Boley, or the whole country for that matter, would be different if John H. Lilley was still the school its first superintendent envisioned nearly a hundred years ago, rather than the cage farm that it is today. The prison may or may not have been the cause of the death of Boley, but this much is true, the despair that floats in the air is of the same quality as that which hangs over McAlester, or Stringtown, or Taft, or anywhere the U.S.A. Places where the razor wire from the local prison glints in the glow of the evening sun.

These monoliths of despair, these brick boxes that separate families and destroy communities are our nation’s blight, yet we just drive by them and give them no more mind than any other non-descript structures that rise and fall on the horizon of America’s highways. I think about John Lilley and the sacrifices he must have made to first get the school going and then to run it with such noble goals, only to see what it has become. I wonder what he would have to say about the sign that bears his name on a building surrounded by razor wire and soaked with the stench of despair rather than the fresh scent of growth and learning. This was an institution with reform, education, and training as its mission. Now, it is a part of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, a department that wears its own title as a lie. There is no correction that goes on here or in any facility under the control of our state’s largest and most funded agency.

This is Oklahoma, and we put an educator’s name on a prison because we thought that would be an honor. I just cannot believe John Lilley would be proud of the place he is buried, not since 1983 anyway.

The post FROM THE ROAD first appeared on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

The post FROM THE ROAD appeared first on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

A Theft at the Crossroads Store

admin — Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:37:23 +0000

A THEFT AT THE CROSSROADS STORE: The Story of the Case of Cody Pollard

The story I was given was not that uncommon. Cody Pollard was at his home on December 21, 2018, when his doorbell rang. The ring was followed quickly by sharp fast knocks, and he could hear his name being called. When Cody opened the door, he saw two large men on the other side. Before he could say anything the larger of the two men started into a speech on how he was going to be truthful with him and that Cody needed to be truthful back.

The man talking was Tim Turner, despite his lack of uniform the Sherriff is easily recognizable to most of the citizens of Haskell County. Along with the Sheriff was Deputy French.

Turner began interrogating Cody, asking him about some chainsaws that may have been stolen from the Crossroads store on Highway 9. According to Sheriff Turner’s report, Cody denied any knowledge of any chainsaws, but Cody claimed that he did know of some chainsaws that “were possibly” stolen. It is also attributed to him that he said that these chainsaws were taken to the town of Gans.

It is important to note for this article that Cody Pollard denies that he ever made those statements to Sherriff Turner on that day or any other. He does confirm that Turner came to his home that day, and he does confirm that he denied any knowledge of any stolen chainsaws but denies any of the claims of the Sherriff, and without a recording of this interaction, we can only rely on the word of both men who claim their version of events is the accurate one.

Cody was arrested and charged with the following: Count 1- Burglary in the Third Degree (felony), Count 2- Grand Larceny (felony), and Count 3 Larceny of Gasoline. Those charges were filed on the 8th of January, 2019 in the District Court of Haskell County. Cody hired Wagner and Lynch, and I (Brecken) took the case.

THE CRIME

On November 20, 2018, Haskell County Dispatch took a call from a man that worked for West and said that his work truck was broken into and some equipment was stolen. The man noticed that the tool door on his truck was open and that four chainsaws had been taken. He estimated the worth of the chainsaws to be about $2000.00. He also noticed that someone had siphoned some gas from the wood chipper.

Because of a recent thunderstorm that had damaged the camera, no surveillance video from the lot itself was available. However, there was a business across the road and it had cameras that faced the direction of the Crossroads Store. The investigating officer, Undersheriff Mike Buntin, described what he observed from the store’s video in his report.

He writes, “From that camera, I could see the west side of the Crossroads Store as well as Highway 9. From the time stamp on the video, I noticed a light, possibly white, colored car enter the Crossroads parking lot and drive to where West’s trucks are parked. The car leaves about 4 hours later.”

A little over a month later a young lady named Destiny Gordon was arrested for a different matter and when she arrived at the Haskell County Jail, she apparently had information about the stolen chainsaws from the Crossroads Store. In a statement that she supposedly gave to Undersheriff Buntin, she stated that she was with Cody Pollard on the evening the chainsaws were stolen. She further stated that she drove Cody and another person to the Crossroads Store and pulled into the back of the parking lot near the work trucks. She stayed in the vehicle while Cody and the other person got out and placed two chainsaws in her trunk and two more in the backseat of the car. The only other detail that she gave was that Cody was driving as she had been drinking.

This conversation, despite it allegedly occurring in the Haskell County Jail, was not recorded, nor was there a statement generated and signed by Ms. Gordon. The statement only exists in the report of Undersheriff Mike Buntin, and when I reached out to Ms. Gordon to discuss it with her in preparing for our preliminary hearing, she told me that it never happened. She told me that not only did she not take Cody to this store, but the conversation with Undersheriff Buntin never occurred either.

Sherriff Turner was relying on this when he went to Cody’s house and demanded answers. It would take nearly two years and a pandemic to blow through before Cody would finally get his day in court, but before it was over it would be one hell of a day.

THE HEARING

A preliminary hearing is guaranteed to a defendant in a felony criminal action in Oklahoma. It is part of our Constitution and requires the State to present evidence of Probable Cause that a certain crime was committed and that the person charged may have been the one to do so. This does not take much. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to avoid bogging down the courts with cases that are too weak evidentially to go to a jury trial. The process is like a gatekeeper. At the same time, the burden at the preliminary hearing is so low, that it should always reflect poorly on the state when a case is thrown out at a preliminary hearing.

The hearing was held on October 25, 2021, before District Judge John Sullivan. The following is based on both my memory and the preliminary hearing transcript from that day.

THE WITNESSES

First, the state called Robert Kilpatrick to the stand. Robert was employed with West Tree Services, and he was called to testify as to the theft itself. Robert testified that West parked their trucks in the Crossroads store parking lot. He said that when he arrived the morning of the incident, he noticed that the bin was open on the passenger side of a truck. There should have been three Husqvarna saws and one Stihl saw in that bin, but they were missing.

Mr. Kilpatrick also testified that he observed the surveillance tape that then Undersheriff Buntin recovered that day from the business across the highway. He said that he saw a white car drive through the parking lot. He could not say the make or model of the car or if it was a four-door-or two-door sedan. He also testified that he could not make out the occupants to give any description as to gender or even the number.

Next, the State called Sherriff Tim Turner to the stand. Turner was asked if Cody Pollard’s name ever came up in regard to some stolen property and he claimed that it had been through a lady named Destiny Gordon. Turner testified, “The vehicle that was there that night had come back stolen. And that vehicle matched the description of the vehicle that Undersheriff Buntin had seen on a video at Crossroads if I recall correctly.” When asked if he recalled what color the vehicle was, Turner testified that it was a white Nissan “maybe”, and that it was newer.

If you are keeping score at home, you will remember that Mr. Kilpatrick could not even describe whether the vehicle had two or four doors, and when he described a color, he said it was “possibly white”. This is consistent with the reports in this case. Up until this point I had not come across any evidence that anyone could tell the make, model, or year of the car (other than “2000s or newer”), let alone any indication that the vehicle that pulls into the Crossroads parking lot on the video was even involved in the theft, let alone stolen itself.

Destiny Gordon was arrested for being in possession of a white sedan that was reported stolen by a family member sometime after this alleged incident, but there is no evidence available to indicate that the car in the Crossroads video and the one she was later alleged to be in possession of (the charge was eventually dismissed) was the same vehicle, or that she was in it.

Turner was asked, “What did Mr. Pollard tell you regarding the property?

“He knew about the chainsaws that came to his residence, knew that they had gone to Gans with the Hunter boys.”

The Sherriff next tried to explain that he had asked Cody about Ms. Gordon and that he admitted they were romantically involved. Turner then claims he told Cody that Ms. Gordon had told them that he had been involved and done all of these things. Turner then claims that he asked Cody if Ms. Gordon was lying to law enforcement, and at this point, he claims Cody lowered his head and said “No”, implying that this was a sign of guilt tantamount to a confession.

Neither of the two law enforcement officers recorded or documented their conversation with Cody Pollard that day other than what the Sheriff wrote in his report. In that report Turner described Cody’s response a little differently, he wrote, “Sherriff Turner asked Pollard if Gordon had lied to him about the thefts and Pollard dropped his head and shook it no. Sheriff Turner asked Pollard again if he had any knowledge and he said no.” So, when the Sheriff was standing in front of Mr. Pollard he interpreted a head-shaking as a definitive assertion of guilt, despite it being immediately followed by a denial of any knowledge about the theft at all, but at court, Turner remembers an actual verbal assertion of guilt not to be followed by an immediate denial.

THE CROSS-EXAMINATION

The following is an exchange between myself and Sheriff Turner from the Preliminary Hearing:

Q.You said that Mr. Pollard told you he knew that some chainsaws were stolen; is that right?

A.Yes, sir.

Q.Okay. That’s your testimony, right?

A.Yes, sir.

Q.Did you read your report before you testified?

A.Yeah.

Q.Okay. Because I’m going to read from it, the second sentence of your last paragraph: (Reading) “Pollard denied any knowledge of anything except that he did have some chainsaws that were possibly stolen.” Right?

A.Okay. Yeah.

Q.There’s a big difference between what he might think is possibly stolen and something that he knows is stolen; would you agree with me?

A.I’ll agree with that.

Q.Also there’s no identification of any kind of, what type of chainsaw, or anything like that, in your report, is there?

A.No, it’s not in there.

When I pointed out that one could not conclude from his report or testimony what chainsaws he’s talking about and if they are even stolen. Sheriff Turner replied, “You and I don’t. But me and him did.” I asked the Sheriff if he even asked what brand these “possibly’ stolen chainsaws were, or how many there were. The Sheriff could not recall if he had asked that question and that’s when I brought up his preference to not record any interviews or support the usage of body-worn cameras.

The exchange went like this:

Q.The reason you didn’t record a statement is that you don’t want us to hear what was said that day, right?

A.That’s your speculation. But, that’s not true.

Q.Well, tell me a reason why you wouldn’t record a statement from a suspect.

A.There’s lots of times I don’t record things, Mr. Wagner.

Q.Why didn’t you record a statement from this suspect?

A.I don’t know.

The Sheriff had no choice, but to begrudgingly agree with me that his statement both began and ended with Cody Pollard denying any knowledge of any stolen equipment. I concluded my cross-examination by further pointing out that Mr. Pollard could have written the Sheriff a statement, but once again the Sheriff wasn’t interested in that because he knew a written statement from Cody would include more denials and that would not help the Sheriff prove his case. Maybe the State thought that their next witness would clear everything up for them, but since I was the only one in the room that had taken the time to talk to her, I suspected her testimony was not going to be helpful.

Destiny Gordon had been brought in from a correctional facility where she was serving a prison sentence for an unrelated matter. I took the time before our hearing to sit down with Destiny and hear her story. Now in recovery, Destiny was looking forward to her release from custody and a new start. She told me about her addiction and how that had led her to the place she was now. She also told me about her stay at the Haskell County Jail and how she was pulled from her cell and interrogated about her case, but had no memory of any interview about some chainsaws stolen from the Crossroads store. She denied any knowledge of being there on any night with Cody Pollard, or ever telling any member of the Haskell County Sheriff Department that she was. She also cleared up for me that she had never been in a dating relationship with Cody Pollard, something Cody had told me as well.

Ms. Burns, the Assistant District Attorney that was prosecuting this case asked Destiny to confirm every statement both Mike Buntin and Tim Turner claimed that she made to them. She denied them all. She testified under oath, “I don’t remember talking to Tim Turner. I don’t remember talking to Mike Buntin. I don’t remember.” She also testified during her direct examination that she was so under the influence of drugs and alcohol during this time period, that she did not even remember being arrested, but only waking up in jail and finding out she had already been there for five days.

As Ms. Burns pressed, Ms. Gordon would recount her one meeting that she remembered with then Undersheriff Buntin, but she was clear that she only remembered talking about the allegations against her and never discussing Cody Pollard. Further, Ms. Gordon repeatedly explained to Ms. Burns that when she did speak with Mr. Buntin, she was clearly still under the influence of drugs in her system. Ms. Burns asked about every statement that both Buntin and Sherriff Turner claimed that she made, and if she remembered it.

In answer to each and every question, Ms. Gordon would look at Ms. Burns earnestly and answer, “No”.

Ms. Gordon would be followed by the former Undersheriff, Mike Buntin, who testified that Ms. Gordon had told him all of these things. On cross-examination, I would once again point out that none of this interview was recorded, although there was an interview room at the jail equipped for both audio and video recording. However, the lack of any evidence went further than that, there were no logs, notes, or documentation of any kind to indicate that the interview ever happened let alone that it included a discussion about Cody Pollard. There was no excuse for the lack of any corroboration or recording, given that recording the interview or documenting that it ever occurred would have been so easy and you would think the normal course of business for any law enforcement agency.

Judge Sullivan did grant our motion to dismiss the case at the conclusion of the hearing, but the state did not stop there and decided to appeal that decision to another judge. Judge Campbell of Bryan County was assigned to review the record and decide if Judge Sullivan was wrong in his decision. Judge Campbell affirmed Sullivan’s decision, writing, “The record before this Court is devoid of admissible evidence which implicates the Defendant in the felony offenses set forth in the information.”

What happened in Cody’s case is not so much an outlier, but too often typical of how law enforcement operates in smaller communities. Many times, open cases are miraculously “solved” in jail. When you live in a community where many folks know each other and many of the same people (generally because of addiction and mental health issues) have contact with law enforcement, law enforcement may use their power to push through really bad prosecutions for the sake of “solving” crimes. Further, most rural law enforcement and this is absolutely true for Haskell County, do not record their interviews with witnesses and suspects.

Why would you NOT record an interview? Well, this case is a glaring example. Look at how law enforcement, in this case, Sherriff Turner, tried to shape Cody’s words into what almost appeared to be a confession. Ms. Gordon did not cooperate with the state’s version of events, but that is not always the case. I was very concerned that even after I spoke with Ms. Gordon that morning about her testimony. I was concerned because despite what she said to me, I knew she would still be subject to some pretty extreme pressure if not intimidation to go along with the state’s version of events she had no memory of.

That pressure came when Ms. Burns not so subtly pointed out to Ms. Gordon that she was under oath when she testified that morning. That was a not too veiled threat that she may face perjury charges if her testimony was different from what the officers said. Ms. Gordon held strong and instead testified with strength and conviction all the while knowing that she could be putting herself in danger.

I also said that too often crimes are “solved” in jail in small rural communities. Well, there is also a lot of pressure in small communities to solve crimes, in particular in Haskell County where the social media page for the Haskell County Sheriff’s Department tends to highlight “successful” cases on a regular basis. So, it’s easy to connect the potential dots as to how justice can take a back seat when the conclusion is more important.

Destiny Gordon was arrested for being in possession of a stolen vehicle which happens to be a white sedan. There is this open case from the Crossroads Store and it appears to be a common level theft likely committed by a local, and law enforcement officers always have a few local residents in mind when it comes to petty crime like this kind of theft. Destiny Gordon is taken out of her cell and told that they know she’s good for this and she is asked who she hangs around with because they are probably involved.

At some point in the interview, maybe she mentions that she knows or hangs out with Cody Pollard and some others. The Sheriff goes out to see Cody. In the Sheriff’s mind, Cody is guilty because his Undersheriff told him that Cody was involved, so now the Sheriff needs to get Cody to say something that can be used to show he was involved and that will be good enough. The Sheriff would have enough to take to the District Attorney to bring charges, these are not wealthy people so they will just get some overworked public defender that will not really get too deep in trying to defend this, and the shaky raft of evidence will hold together long enough to float this guy on down the river.

But that didn’t happen in this case. Cody did retain Wagner & Lynch. We treated his case as we treat every case and put in the maximum effort to try to get to the bottom of it and seek actual justice for Cody.

There should be more accountability. A defendant should not feel at a disadvantage because it is his word against that of a law enforcement officer. This is especially true when law enforcement officers are not only allowed to, but trained how to lie to and mislead a suspect in order to obtain a statement, confession, or other responses that could sound incriminating.

If law enforcement officers are going to continue to avoid corroborating any statements made to them through the use of a recording when technology today makes it extremely easy through body cameras, handheld recorders, and the smartphones in their pocket that can record with a prompt, then judges and juries should be instructed to consider their testimony with less or equal veracity to that of the denial of the defendant. After all, isn’t that only fair? Wouldn’t that bring us a little closer to making justice a priority?

The post A Theft at the Crossroads Store first appeared on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.

The post A Theft at the Crossroads Store appeared first on Criminal Defense Lawyer | McAlester | Wagner & Lynch.