Bond was set at $150,000 for a Bartlesville man accused of multiple felony offenses, including lewd molestation, DUI, child endangerment, child neglect, driving with a suspended license, and eluding police.
Casey Adam Burns, 23, is accused of molesting a 3-year-old girl and driving drunk with the girl and two other young children in the car.
A witness called police after allegedly discovering Burns in the bathroom with the toddler, who was "distressed." The witness says he and Burns had been drinking beer together, and that Burns had made several trips to the bathroom to "throw up." On one occasion, the witness turned down the music and heard the little girl crying and Burns saying, "Shh." In an affidavit, the witness said he entered the bathroom and found Burns with his pants down and the child's head in his lap. The witness ordered Burns from the apartment, and the suspect left, taking the 3-year-old girl, a 4-year-old child, and a 1-year-old child with him.
When police responded to the witness's call, Burns drove by with the children in the vehicle. They pursued him with lights flashing, but he did not pull over. Instead, he drove to a nearby store and entered, leaving the children in the vehicle.
Burns was arrested and taken to the Washington County Jail. The children were left in the supervision of a relative. According to an affidavit, the 3-year-old girl told the relative that the suspect tried to make her "touch his private parts."
Burns has prior felony convictions in Osage County for making a bomb threat, grand larceny, and second degree burglary. He was also charged with sexual battery in Washington County in 2011, but was acquitted at jury trial.
The sexual abuse of a child under 12 is punishable by 25 years to live in prison under 21 O.S. 843.5(f). According to the Oklahoma Children and Juvenile Code, sexual abuse "includes but is not limited to rape, incest, and lewd or indecent acts or proposals made to a child, as defined by law, by a person responsible for the health, safety, or welfare of the child."
Neglect is defined as:
a. the failure or omission to provide any of the following:
(1) adequate nurturance and affection, food, clothing, shelter,sanitation, hygiene, or appropriate education,
(2) medical, dental, or behavioral health care,
(3) supervision or appropriate caretakers, or
(4) special care made necessary by the physical or mentalcondition of the child,
b. the failure or omission to protect a child from exposure to anyof the following:
(1) the use, possession, sale, or manufacture of illegal drugs,
(2) illegal activities, or
(3) sexual acts or materials that are not age- appropriate, or
c. abandonment.
Child neglect is also punishable by a maximum of life in prison.
A former Oklahoma State University student charged with sexually assaulting four other students while they slept has waived his right to a preliminary hearing.
Nathan Cochran, 22, was charged with four counts of sexual battery after he was accused of fondling other male students as they slept. University officials came under fire for not reporting the alleged crimes to police, who only became aware of the criminal allegations against Cochran after they were contacted by a student reporter seeking information about the assaults.
Cochran pleaded not guilty when charged, but it is expected that he will change his plea after waiving the preliminary hearing earlier this week. An arraignment is scheduled for June 21.
What is a preliminary hearing, and why would one waive his or her right to it?
A preliminary hearing is an evidentiary hearing in which the prosecution presents its evidence against the defendant. A judge determines whether the evidence is sufficient to order the defendant to stand trial for the crime or crimes with which he has been charged. A defendant should only waive his right to a preliminary hearing after close counsel by his defense attorney.
Typically, a preliminary hearing is waived by a person who intends to plead guilty. If the defendant plans to enter a plea of guilt, there is no need to determine whether or not a trial is warranted. Furthermore, the presentation of evidence might be detrimental during the sentencing phase of a defendant who has admitted guilt or pleaded no contest.
However, there are also certain other conditions under which a defendant might waive his or her right to a preliminary hearing, maintain the not guilty plea, and still proceed with trial. These situations generally involve concerns over witness testimony and the strength of the prosecution's case. For example, if a prosecution witness would be available to testify at the preliminary hearing, but not the trial itself, a defendant might waive the preliminary hearing in order to eliminate that testimony from his or her trial.
The next court proceeding after the preliminary hearing, or following a waived preliminary hearing, is the arraignment. At the arraignment, the formal charges are read and the defendant has another opportunity to plead not guilty, guilty, or nolo contendere (no contest). If the defendant enters a plea of not guilty, the judge sets the trial date.
How to plead and whether or not to waive a preliminary hearing are serious legal matters and should only be determined after careful consideration of the case and under the advice of skilled legal counsel.
UCN2QZC5Y347
Thou shalt not kill. It is one of the Ten Commandments that any Bible Belt minister worth his salt can recite from memory. For one Oklahoma City pastor, however, this commandment was broken like Moses' tablets of stone, leaving him to face a first-degree murder trial.
Michael Scott Elder, 53, is accused of first-degree murder in the shooting death of his son-in-law, Gary Davidson, 27. After conflicting testimony at a preliminary hearing last week, Oklahoma County District Court Judge Ray C. Elliot ordered Elder to stand trial for murder.
Defense attorneys for Elder say he was acting in defense of his daughter, April Davidson, when he shot her estranged husband in the couple's pickup truck.
According to an early affidavit, Gary Davidson was shot as he and April Davidson struggled for control of a pickup truck. Police say that Gary had called 911 the day before the shooting to report that his father-in-law had stolen his truck. When police investigated, they determined that the incident was a civil matter and that their involvement was unnecessary. The Davidson's had filed for divorce, and they were disputing ownership of the vehicle. The truck, which was in both Gary and April Davidson's names, was released to April.
Gary then allegedly picked up the couple's 2-year-old daughter, who lived with April, and took her to his home in retaliation for the truck. The following day, April agreed to return the truck in exchange for her daughter. When Gary refused to release the child to his estranged wife, she attempted to leave.
April Davidson testified at the preliminary hearing that Gary got into the front seat of the truck and attempted to push and pull her from the vehicle. She said that she had her foot on the brake, but Gary pressed the gas, and she feared for her life. She testified that her father ran alongside the truck, telling Gary Davidson to end the assault. April said she heard one shot, but did not see her father fire a weapon. She testified that Gary crawled to the back seat of the vehicle and fell out.
April Davidson's testimony was countered by that of Judith Chism, Gary Davidson's girlfriend who lived with him at the residence where the shooting occurred. Chism says that the truck was stopped and Gary was attempting to leave the back seat vehicle when he was shot. She testified to hearing four or five shots.
A crime scene investigator testified that Davidson was shot three times at close range through the front passenger side window, with at least two of those shots occurring when Davidson was in the back seat.
Now, a jury will decide whether Michael Elder, who has pleaded not guilty to first degree murder, is guilty of murder or if he was within his rights to protect his daughter from serious bodily harm or even death.
Disputes over custody or division of assets can turn ugly in a dispute. When heated disagreements turn to domestic violence, the results can be deadly. Even with Oklahoma's permissive Stand Your Ground self defense laws, it can be hard to define the distinction between justifiable homicide and murder.
The devastating tornado that ripped through Moore, Oklahoma, two days ago reduced homes, businesses, and schools to rubble. Hundreds of homeowners were left with nothing, and yesterday they began the slow, painful process of literally picking through the pieces and trying to find anything worth salvaging. Adding insult to injury was the specter of looters, those who prey on the victims of natural disasters, taking advantage of unsecured areas to steal any property of value. Taking the last remaining items of value from those who have lost nearly everything seems a particularly heartless form of theft, one which Moore police officers say they will "hammer as much as [they] can."
Early news reports said that looters were stealing computers from the heavily damaged Moore Medical Center. A security guard later posted at the facility told reporters they were preparing for possible looting. Police presence was intensified around many areas, including Plaza Towers Elementary, and a curfew has been enforced, not only to protect the safety of homeowners in structurally unsound areas, but also to prevent looting.
Oklahoma has not seen the widespread looting that has occurred in other disaster areas around the country. Generally, this state is recognized for its sense of community and volunteer spirit in coming together to help those afflicted by tragedy. Unfortunately, anywhere disaster strikes, opportunists also strike, taking advantage of victims through price gouging, fundraising scams, and even looting.
Yesterday, Moore police announced the first two looting arrests following the the May 20 tornado. Police spokesman Jeremy Lewis said that homeowners in a damaged neighborhood witnessed two men picking through the rubble and putting items in their pockets. The men were arrested and booked into the Cleveland County jail.
Fortunately, stories like this are the exception rather than the rule. While two people have been arrested for looting, thousands of Oklahomans have contributed time, money, and supplies to help the victims of the tornado. Donation drop-off locations had long lines as people dropped off bottled water, diapers, wipes, sunscreen, work gloves, and more. Chesapeake and Oklahoma City Thunder's Kevin Durant, on behalf of his foundation, each pledged $1 million to support the recovery effort. Shelters have popped up in churches across the area, providing supplies, showers, hot meals, and a place to sleep for displaced tornado victims. According to one Red Cross worker, though, the shelters are not being utilized as well as they should because of the specter of looters. She said that although 50-60 people stopped by the shelter where she volunteered to pick up supplies, fewer than 10 people spent Monday night in the shelter: "They’re afraid to leave their houses because they’re afraid of looters. That’s just wrong — people who’ve lost just about everything shouldn’t have to worry about somebody stealing what’s left.’’
Looters, beware. If you are caught stealing from tornado victims, you will be prosecuted aggressively. Oklahoma will show little tolerance for those who further victimize those who have already lost so much.
Oklahoma is typically considered a gun-friendly state, allowing open carry of firearms and excepting private sellers from conducting background checks. The private seller loophole sometimes allows convicted felons and others prohibited from gun possession to circumvent the law to purchase firearms.
Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon not only violates state law, but it is a federal offense in violation of the United States criminal code. Typically, Oklahoma gun crimes are prosecuted in state courts, but in some cases, the federal government takes jurisdiction. Federal gun crimes are prosecuted by United States District Attorneys in federal court.
A recent local news feature exposed how the private seller loophole makes it possible for convicted felons to buy the firearms and ammunition they are prohibited from possessing. When these individuals approach a federal firearms dealer rather than a private seller, they simply walk away when realizing they must submit to a background check. At other times, they mock the process, saying they will just send a friend or relative to purchase the gun for them. Increased police presence at gun shows has helped to curb the problem, but gun shows and private sellers remain popular among prohibited persons wishing to buy a firearm.
Federal law prohibits convicted felons, those with documented mental illness, individuals subject to a restraining order, and other various individuals from owning or possessing guns and ammunition. These prohibited persons are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g):
Last week, a federal grand jury indicted a Garfield County man on federal gun charge of being a mentally defective person in possession of a firearm. Drummond High School staff members called police in late January saying that a man was "walking around the school acting very strange." Sheriff's deputies found Justin Wayne Prentiss, 32, a man who had formerly attended the school and who had a history of mental illness. Prentiss told deputies that he was looking for the school's former principal, Jerry Ott, saying he was "upset" with the principal for "kicking him out of school" nearly 20 years ago. Prentiss had a .45 caliber handgun in his possession.
Whether you are facing gun charges in federal court or Oklahoma state court, your defense hinges upon finding an experienced gun lawyer to handle your case. Visit the website of attorney Ryan Coventon to submit a confidential case review form or call (405) 417-3842.
One area school teacher's "extracurricular" activities have landed her in big legal trouble. Piedmont High School teacher Misti Bynum, 37, Edmond, was arrested last week on complaints of possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and possession of drug paraphernalia after a traffic stop for a broken brake light. She was booked into the Oklahoma County Jail on April 30 and released the following day after posting $3,500 bail.
Bynum continued working at the high school after her arrest until Monday, May 6, when the school district became aware of her arrest. On Tuesday, other teachers told students that Bynum no longer worked at the school. Piedmont Schools Superintendent James White would not comment on Bynum's employment status, saying the district cannot address personnel issues. However, he assured concerned parents, "We're doing everything within the law to protect the safety and well-being of our students."
Police say Misti Bynum was observed leaving a "known drug house" in southeast Oklahoma City. She was pulled over a short time later for a defective brake light. According to police reports, an officer noticed Bynum's cell phone lying in the passenger seat of the vehicle, which lit up with a text message that read, "50 tabs for $400." A search of the cell phone found several messages that indicated that Bynum was trading the prescription painkiller Lortab for meth. Police requested a drug dog to search her vehicle. The search uncovered a baggie and straw with methamphetamine residue in Bynum's purse. She was arrested for meth possession and possession of paraphernalia and cited for her defective brake light.
When pulling a person over in a traffic stop, whether for DUI or any other reason, police must first have probable cause. Without just cause, a defense attorney may be able to have the case dismissed if any evidence obtained was the result of an illegal traffic stop. In Bynum's case, leaving the "drug house" alone does not warrant probable cause to pull her over. However, her defective lights gave police the ammunition they needed for a stop. If her cell phone was lying in open view and the text message appeared and was obvious to police without a search, as alleged, that provided probable cause to search her phone for evidence of involvement in drug distribution.
In many drug oossession cases, illegal search and seizure can be an effective defense strategy. If, however, a search is conducted legally and within the appropriate law enforcement procedures, a drug lawyer must carefully evaluate the case to uncover other possible defense options. Read more about drug crime defense or submit a confidential case review form on the Coventon Criminal Defense website.
An Oklahoma man who spent 84 days in jail for a rape he did not commit is planning to sue for wrongful arrest and detention. Tommy Braden, of Sapulpa, was arrested on April 6, 2012, after being accused of the brutal rape of his girlfriend's 4-year-old daughter. Braden proclaimed his innocence and begged the Creek County Sheriff's Office to conduct a DNA test, but they refused. According to Braden's attorney, the Sheriff's Office said they were not going to do a DNA test because it was a "waste of taxpayers' dollars." Eventually, the accused man's sex crimes defense lawyer got a judge to approve a DNA test, and the evidence cleared Braden of the crime on July 3, approximately three months after his wrongful arrest.
The DNA evidence not only excluded Braden as a suspect in the child's rape, but it came back as a perfect match for Patrick Edward Misner, a convicted felon who was living in the same mobile home park as Braden, his girlfriend, and her children. Misner has since been charged with burglary, lewd molestation, and rape, and is being held on $750,000 while awaiting trial.
Braden and his lawyers say investigators should not have been so quick to make an arrest without looking at potential suspects living nearby, and they assert a DNA test should have been conducted immediately.
Records indicate that the attack on the little girl occurred late one night while Braden, his girlfriend, and her 2-year-old son were asleep at the opposite end of their trailer. The girl's mother left for work early in the morning, and Braden later discovered the child naked and bleeding in bed. He noticed that her window had been broken and there was blood on the front porch, believed to be from a family dog that was later found stabbed to death behind the residence.
Police said that the scene appeared to be staged and that a lie detector indicated that Braden was deceptive when questioned about the child. Furthermore, the girl identified Braden as her attacker. However, Braden's attorney notes that the little girl's identification came after more than an hour of questioning.
According to his lawyer, Braden has suffered tremendously as a result of his wrongful arrest, and the damage to his family, his job, and his reputation could have been avoided if the Creek County Sheriff's Office had not been negligent in their refusal to perform a DNA test which would have immediately exonerated Braden.
Because of Braden's arrest, DHS filed a case against his girlfriend for failure to protect her daughter. Despite the fact he has since been cleared of the crime, DHS has not yet dropped the deprived child case against the girl's mother.
In cases of child sexual abuse or violent rape, police and child welfare agents act quickly to make an arrest and to get a suspected abuser away from any potential victims. It is critical that we protect our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, but it is also important to preserve the rights of the accused. Just because a person is suspected of a crime does not mean he or she is guilty of the crime. In this case, a DNA test conducted early in the investigation would have set an innocent man free. However, he was held for three months until a defense attorney was able to assert his rights.
Now, he is seeking compensation. The real "waste of taxpayers' dollars" comes not from the cost of DNA testing, but the costs of a wrongful arrest and detention and a possible damage award from a civil lawsuit.
An investigation into the dealings of a Coweta, Oklahoma, strip club has led to the arrest of two people accused of operating a brothel. Police say the owner of the Secret Cavern strip club and a woman believed to be his wife were arrested after a four-month-long investigation. The ABLE Commission, District 27 Drug Task Force, Cherokee County Sheriff's Office, and other law enforcement agencies began investigating the strip club at the urging of local residents who said more was going on at the club than just dancing.
According to an ABLE Commission agent who was part of the task force investigating the Secret Cavern, law enforcement officials uncovered significant evidence of prostitution: “The cover it has is an exotic dance club, an adult entertainment club, but it's a brothel. We've got a lot of evidence to show it's a brothel. They're running prostitution out the back. It's set up for that, there's a bed in the back.”
Police say the strip club has come under investigation for prostitution before, but that it has been difficult for local law enforcement to have thorough access to the club because patrons and employees would recognize local police as law officers.
Many people consider prostitution to be a victimless sex crime. Typically in Oklahoma, engaging in prostitution is prosecuted as a misdemeanor, but in some circumstances, it may be considered a felony. Felony prostitution charges result from engaging in prostitution while knowingly infected with HIV, engaging in child prostitution or engaging in prostitution within 1,000 feet of a school or church (§21-1031).
Laws prohibiting brothels or houses of prostitution are outlined in Chapter 39 of the Oklahoma Criminal Code, the section governing obscenity and child pornography.
§21 1025: Bawdy house, etc. Penalty - Every person who keeps any bawdy house, house of ill fame, of assignation, or of prostitution, or any other house or place for persons to visit for unlawful sexual intercourse, or for any other lewd, obscene or indecent purpose, is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each offense.
§21 1026: Disorderly house - Every person who keeps any disorderly house, or any house of public resort by which the peace, comfort or decency of the immediate neighborhood is habitually disturbed, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
§21 1027: Letting building for unlawful purposes - Every person who lets any building or portion of any building knowing that it is intended to be used for any purpose declared punishable by this article, or who otherwise permits any building or portion of a building to be so used, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
If you have been arrested for engaging in prostitution or solicitation of prostitution, your primary concern may be the impact it can have on your family and your reputation. A qualified defense attorney can handle your case with discretion and still work aggressively to provide a positive outcome.
An Oklahoma man was arrested on a complaint of possession of child pornography after a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children led state investigators to him.
Mark Bailey, 43, of Seiling was arrested early this week after police received a tip that children were possibly being sexually abused at his home. The possible abuse was associated with an internet address at Bailey's Seiling home.
Investigators found no children in the home and no indication of sexual abuse occurring there; however, when serving a warrant, they allegedly found pornographic images of children on a computer and arrested Bailey for possession of child pornography and violation of the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act.
He was booked into the Dewey County jail.
Police also arrested Bailey's wife, Heather Bailey, on an outstanding warrant from Major County for failure to appear related to an omission to provide for a minor child charge.
Oklahoma child pornography charges are serious felony charges. If convicted of possession of child pornography in Oklahoma, a person is subject to up to ten years in prison:
Every person who willfully and knowingly . . . downloads on a computer . . . any obscene material or child pornography . . . shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a felony and shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ten (10) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (21 O.S. § 1021)
Violating the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act is an additional charge, and any penalties of conviction are in addition to those associated with the underlying crime or crimes. Typically, the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act deals with actions such as hacking or illegally accessing a computer or network. However, there is a provision that prohibits the use of a computer or computer network in committing any state crime:
No person shall communicate with, store data in, or retrieve data from a computer system or computer network for the purpose of using such access to violate any of the provisions of the Oklahoma Statutes. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of not more than five (5) years, or by a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine. (21 O.S. § 1958)
This statute makes additional penalties possible for using computer or internet technology to facilitate a crime. Solicitation of a minor is subject to serious penalties, but soliciting minors online means that an additional 5 years and $5,000 can be added to the sentence for violating the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act. Possession of child pornography is a felony punishable by significant penalties, but if the pornographic images are stored on a computer or computer storage device, §1958 allows for additional penalties for violating the Act.
For those accused of computer sex crimes and violating the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act, quality defense representation is critical for a favorable and just outcome. If you need an internet sex crime lawyer in Oklahoma, visit the criminal defense website of attorney Ryan Coventon to submit a free case review form, or call (405) 417-3842 to schedule your confidential consultation.
In late 2011, Dr. Medhat Michael was accused by his employees of sexual harassment and charged with sexual battery. Earlier this week, those employees testified at Dr. Michael preliminary hearing, alleging that the physician made numerous inappropriate comments and repeatedly touched, hugged, and grabbed them at his office in Edmond, Oklahoma.
When a warrant was issued for his arrest in December 2011, Dr. Michael turned himself in to authorities when police were unable to serve the warrant at either his Oklahoma City home or his office. Dr. Michael denied the allegations of sexual abuse, saying, "This is false allegations, disgruntled employees.There is nothing there, baseless allegations and it’s going to go away.” His criminal defense attorney reiterated his client's proclamation of innocence: "He vehemently denies he’s done anything wrong. We are sure that at end of day he will be exonerated of any wrongdoing.” Former employees, however, assert that the doctor continually harassed them and touched them in a sexual manner without their consent.
Dr. Medhat Michael is charged with sexual battery for allegedly kissing and inappropriately touching four female employees between November 2010 and October 2011, when two accusers went to police about the alleged impropriety of Dr. Michael.
An alleged victim testifying at his preliminary hearing says that Dr. Michael hugged her "really close" during her interview and made her feel uncomfortable. However, she accepted a job at his clinic and said that he began making inappropriate sexual comments, "moaning" when she walked by, and twice grabbing her by the hips and thrusting his lower body against hers. She testified that she told Dr. Michael, "That is not OK. You need to stop right now," but he only laughed at her. She worked at the clinic for only a month.
Other witnesses are expected to testify today. In their previous statements to police, they accused Dr. Medhat Michael of making comments about their physical appearance, asking inappropriate questions about their sexual activity or the size of one woman's boyfriend's genitals, giving forceful hugs, attempting to kiss them, and telling them they were getting him "excited."
One former employee says that Dr. Michael would bark at her like a dog and use sexually explicit language. She accused him of touching her bottom by slipping his hand into her pants. She says she told him to stop "four or five times." Another says the doctor kissed her face, neck, and breasts, and that he told her he thought about her all night and he was "frustrated" because of her. She says he told her he loved her and asked her if she loved him, too.
Although Dr. Medhat Michael is charged with sexual battery allegedly occurring between November 2010 and October 2011, others accuse him of behaving inappropriately for much longer. In fact, one former employee filed a police report against him in 2008. She said she worked for the doctor for two days, during which he kissed her on the lips multiple times. She said at the end of the second day, he kissed her again and tried to put his tongue in her mouth, prompting her to quit and report him to authorities. The woman said she pushed him away each time, but did not explicitly tell him no. The Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office did not file charges in that case because "the victim did not tell him no per statute regulations."
Although the charges against Dr. Michael involve employees, patients accuse him of sexual harrassment as well. In an online review of the physician posted June 4, 2010, patient Jamie B. writes:
I have been to this Dr. four times and every time he says something very inappropriate.. "you are looking extremely gorgeous." I have just chosen to ignore his comments but this last time he was very inpatient when I was asking questions regarding my child's care. His behavior is sexual harassment!! and inappropriate.
Dr. Medhat Michael continues to maintain his innocence, saying, "Anyone can make any allegation against anyone." It is important to remember that any person accused of a crime is to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.
Under Oklahoma law, sexual battery is defined as "the intentional touching, mauling or feeling of the body or private parts of any person sixteen (16) years of age or older, in a lewd and lascivious manner and without the consent of that person." In order to obtain a sexual battery conviction, prosecutors must prove four elements:
The lack of one or more elements of the crime can be a defense against sexual battery charges. If you need a sex crime defense attorney in Oklahoma, visit the website of attorney Ryan Coventon at OK-Criminal-Defense.com/sex-crimes.
