Haskell Criminal Lawyer, Oklahoma

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-814-6700

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-814-6700

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-814-6700

By submitting this request, I authorize you to forward my information to multiple potential lawyers and I agree to your Terms of Use and Privacy Policy including the Consent to Receive Automated Phone Calls, Emails and Texts. Information you provide is not privileged or confidential.


Steven Chris Wyers Lawyer

Steven Chris Wyers

VERIFIED *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here
Adoption, Family Law, Personal Injury, Wills & Probate, Criminal

Steven Wyers graduated from Oklahoma State University in 2006 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration and Marketing. Prior to that, Stev... (more)

Jusin W. Mosteller

Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Accident & Injury, Social Security
Status:  In Good Standing *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here           

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

Terri Anne Mize

Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here           Licensed:  24 Years

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

Martha Jane Cherbini

Criminal, Corporate, Contract, Employment Discrimination
Status:  In Good Standing *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here           

Chad Locke

Family Law, Criminal, Civil Rights, Personal Injury, Misdemeanor
Status:  In Good Standing *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here           

April Shae Buck

Criminal, Adoption, Divorce, Family Law
Status:  In Good Standing *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here           

Marshall K Dyer

Real Estate, Criminal, Business, Personal Injury
Status:  In Good Standing *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here           

Lowell Glenn Howe

Accident & Injury, Criminal, Divorce & Family Law
Status:  In Good Standing *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here           Licensed:  22 Years

Nathan Drew Hendrickson

Criminal, Divorce, Family Law, Federal Appellate Practice
Status:  In Good Standing *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here           

Robert S. Durbin

Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here           

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-814-6700

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-814-6700

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-814-6700

By submitting this request, I authorize you to forward my information to multiple potential lawyers and I agree to your Terms of Use and Privacy Policy including the Consent to Receive Automated Phone Calls, Emails and Texts. Information you provide is not privileged or confidential.

Lawyer.com

TIPS

Lawyer.com can help you easily and quickly find Haskell Criminal Lawyers and Haskell Criminal Law Firms. Refine your search by specific Criminal practice areas such as DUI-DWI, Expungement, Felony, Misdemeanor, RICO Act, White Collar Crime, Traffic and Juvenile Law matters.

LEGAL TERMS

JURY

Criminal Law Traffic TicketshomeGLOSSARY jury A group of people selected to apply the law, as stated by the judge, to the facts of a case and render a decision,... (more...)
Criminal Law Traffic TicketshomeGLOSSARY jury A group of people selected to apply the law, as stated by the judge, to the facts of a case and render a decision, called the verdict. Traditionally, an American jury was made up of 12 people who had to arrive at a unanimous decision. But today, in many states, juries in civil cases may be composed of as few as six members and non-unanimous verdicts may be permitted. (Most states still require 12-person, unanimous verdicts for criminal trials.) Tracing its history back over 1,000 years, the jury system was brought to England by William the Conqueror in 1066. The philosophy behind the jury system is that--especially in a criminal case--an accused's guilt or innocence should be judged by a group of people from her community ('a jury of her peers'). Recently, some courts have been experimenting with increasing the traditionally rather passive role of the jury by encouraging jurors to take notes and ask questions.

DIRECTED VERDICT

A ruling by a judge, typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence but before the defendant puts on his case, that awards judgment to the... (more...)
A ruling by a judge, typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence but before the defendant puts on his case, that awards judgment to the defendant. A directed verdict is usually made because the judge concludes the plaintiff has failed to offer the minimum amount of evidence to prove her case even if there were no opposition. In other words, the judge is saying that, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could decide in the plaintiff's favor. In a criminal case, a directed verdict is a judgement of acquittal for the defendant.

MOTION IN LIMINE

A request submitted to the court before trial in an attempt to exclude evidence from the proceedings. A motion in limine is usually made by a party when simply ... (more...)
A request submitted to the court before trial in an attempt to exclude evidence from the proceedings. A motion in limine is usually made by a party when simply the mention of the evidence would prejudice the jury against that party, even if the judge later instructed the jury to disregard the evidence. For example, if a defendant in a criminal trial were questioned and confessed to the crime without having been read his Miranda rights, his lawyer would file a motion in limine to keep evidence of the confession out of the trial.

PROSECUTE

When a local District Attorney, state Attorney General or federal United States Attorney brings a criminal case against a defendant.

IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST

A seldom-used test for criminal insanity that labels the person insane if he could not control his actions when committing the crime, even though he knew his ac... (more...)
A seldom-used test for criminal insanity that labels the person insane if he could not control his actions when committing the crime, even though he knew his actions were wrong.

CRIMINAL INSANITY

A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to ditinguish right... (more...)
A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to ditinguish right from wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, since criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong -- a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make. See also irresistible impulse; McNaghten Rule.

MENS REA

The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental s... (more...)
The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

SPECIFIC INTENT

An intent to produce the precise consequences of the crime, including the intent to do the physical act that causes the consequences. For example, the crime of ... (more...)
An intent to produce the precise consequences of the crime, including the intent to do the physical act that causes the consequences. For example, the crime of larceny is the taking of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the other person of the property. A person is not guilty of larceny just because he took someone else's property; it must be proven that he took it with the purpose of keeping it permanently.

DISCOVERY

A formal investigation -- governed by court rules -- that is conducted before trial. Discovery allows one party to question other parties, and sometimes witness... (more...)
A formal investigation -- governed by court rules -- that is conducted before trial. Discovery allows one party to question other parties, and sometimes witnesses. It also allows one party to force the others to produce requested documents or other physical evidence. The most common types of discovery are interrogatories, consisting of written questions the other party must answer under penalty of perjury, and depositions, which involve an in-person session at which one party to a lawsuit has the opportunity to ask oral questions of the other party or her witnesses under oath while a written transcript is made by a court reporter. Other types of pretrial discovery consist of written requests to produce documents and requests for admissions, by which one party asks the other to admit or deny key facts in the case. One major purpose of discovery is to assess the strength or weakness of an opponent's case, with the idea of opening settlement talks. Another is to gather information to use at trial. Discovery is also present in criminal cases, in which by law the prosecutor must turn over to the defense any witness statements and any evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant. Depending on the rules of the court, the defendant may also be obliged to share evidence with the prosecutor.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

Leftwich v. Court of Criminal Appeals

¶ 2 The Supreme Court heard oral argument from the Petitioner, Real Party in Interest, and Amicus Curiae. Counsel for Petitioner, counsel for the Real Party in Interest, and counsel for Amicus Curiae all agreed during oral argument that certain issues raised herein were not raised, ...

Ochoa v. Bass

... Respondents. No. HC-2007-1120. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. March 12, 2008. ... hearing. We do not decide whether the trial court can or should ask such questions in any other stage of criminal proceedings prior to sentencing. ...

Nilsen v. State

... No. M-2007-285. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. February 27, 2009. ... 2 Appellant raises the following proposition of error: 1. The stop of Appellant's vehicle was not based on the reasonable suspicion that Appellant was engaged in criminal activity. ...

© 2025 LAWYER.COM INC.

Use of this website constitutes acceptance of Lawyer.com’s Terms of Use, Email, Phone, & Text Message and Privacy Policies.