Polygraph Examination Archives

RE-2021-1202

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 10, 2022
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1202, Jimmy Dale Jackson, Jr. appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his probation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of his suspended sentence to six months instead of a longer term. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Jimmy Dale Jackson, Jr. had a suspended sentence from a previous conviction for Lewd Molestation, which means he was not in prison but had to follow certain rules. In 2021, the State of Oklahoma accused him of breaking those rules. They said he did many things wrong, such as driving with a gun, using drugs, not paying the fees he needed to, and talking to a girl who was a minor, which he was told not to do. When Jackson went to the court for a hearing, the judge decided that he had indeed broken the rules, and as a result, revoked his suspended sentence completely. Jackson then appealed this decision. He argued that the judge's decision was too harsh and that he should not have been punished so severely for what he called technical violations. He also claimed that the judge improperly used the results of a lie detector test (polygraph) against him during the hearing. The court had to consider whether the judge had made a real mistake. They found out that Jackson's violations were mostly technical, meaning they were not serious crimes but rather rule-breaking issues. According to Oklahoma law, if a person on probation has technical violations for the first time, the judge can only revoke their suspended sentence for up to six months. The court decided that Jackson's violations did not include breaking any serious laws because he had never been told to follow specialized rules for sex offenders, which would have been more serious. They noted he was only accused of violating standard probation rules. Since the judge revoked his sentence for a period longer than what the law allows for technical violations, the court agreed that was a mistake. Regarding the polygraph results, Jackson's team had talked about them first, so the court said that Jackson could not complain about that now. They concluded that even without the polygraph, there were enough other reasons to revoke his probation. In the end, the court said Jackson's sentenced revocation would be adjusted to six months, meaning he would have to follow the suspension rules for just that amount of time instead of facing a longer prison term. The court emphasized that everyone must understand the rules when they are on probation and that following proper legal steps is important to ensure fairness. So, in summary, the court reduced Jackson's punishment because they found he was not given proper notice about the rules he had to follow and that he should not have been penalized so harshly for technical violations alone.

RE-2018-604

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LEROY ALEXANDER, JR.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-604** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 10 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Leroy Alexander, Jr., was sentenced to a total of fifteen years for the crime of Rape in the Second Degree, with all but the first year suspended. This appeal arises from the revocation of the remainder of his suspended sentence by the Honorable George W. Butner, District Judge of Seminole County. **Facts:** On April 5, 2018, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence, alleging violations related to failure to attend sex offender treatment and failure to submit to required polygraph examinations. An amended motion on June 1, 2018, added allegations of inappropriate employment at a children's carnival ride during a festival. During the revocation hearing, the State's probation officer testified that Appellant had initially attended treatment sessions but was terminated for non-attendance. Appellant claimed his violations stemmed from financial hardship and lack of transportation. The Court ultimately found that Appellant had not made genuine efforts to comply with the terms of his probation. **Points of Error:** 1. **Proposition I:** Appellant argues that the trial court lacked authority to revoke more than the actual suspended portion of his sentence. He claims the written order incorrectly states that all of the fifteen years was revoked. However, the oral pronouncement during the hearing indicated the revocation was for the remainder of the suspended sentence. The court later issued an amendment to clarify the written judgment, aligning it with the oral ruling. 2. **Proposition II:** Appellant contends the full revocation of his suspended sentence was excessive, arguing that his violations were a result of indigence and lack of resources. The court's discretion in revoking a suspended sentence is established unless there is an abuse of discretion. Judge Butner found the violations were due to Appellant's lack of effort rather than financial difficulties, which was supported by evidence in the record. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Seminole County revoking the remainder of Appellant's fifteen-year suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. The Mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **ATTORNEYS:** - **ZACHARY L. PYRON** - **CHAD JOHNSON** (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **CHRISTOPHER G. ANDERSON** - **MIKE HUNTER** - **THEODORE M. PEEPER** (Assistant District Attorney / Attorney General of Oklahoma) **OPINION BY:** **KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-604_1734429602.pdf)

F-2007-200

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 5, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-200, Jamie Cruz appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Jamie Cruz, who was found guilty on two counts of engaging in inappropriate conduct with an eight-year-old boy named T.M. Cruz was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count, to be served concurrently. The case had a long history of delays and court proceedings before it finally went to trial. During the trial, the evidence included Cruz’s admissions made during a polygraph examination he took while on probation. His defense argued that these admissions were wrongly obtained and that the trial court made errors in not considering his motion to suppress these statements. The trial court denied requests for continuances which the defense claimed were needed to prepare adequately for trial. Several arguments were made on appeal, including claims that the trial court should have suppressed the admissions made during the polygraph test because it violated his right against self-incrimination. Cruz argued that the compulsion to take the polygraph test because of his probation created a situation where he did not have a true choice, as refusing to comply could lead to his imprisonment. The court ruled that Cruz's rights were not violated. They said he had failed to assert his privilege against self-incrimination when he did not refuse to answer questions during the polygraph. The majority opinion found the polygraph examination was part of the conditions of his probation, and thus the admissions were not compelled in a manner that would invalidate them. Cruz also argued about other evidentiary issues during the trial, including the admission of prior bad acts as evidence and restrictions on jury selection. The court noted that while some of the trial court’s actions could be seen as problematic, they did not rise to the level of prejudice needed to overturn the conviction. In conclusion, while the court affirmed the convictions, they found that Cruz should not have received the life sentences as structured and directed that the case be sent back for proper resentencing under the relevant laws, as the previous sentencing did not follow the correct statutory guidance.

F-2003-1089

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 13, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1089, Micah Ananias Horn appealed his conviction for Committing Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Horn was found guilty and sentenced to eight years in prison. He argued that several things were wrong with his trial. First, he said he didn't get a fair trial because the jury saw video evidence about a lie detector test, which is not allowed in court. He also claimed his confession was not given freely and that the prosecutor unfairly tried to make the jury feel sorry for the victim. Horn believed there wasn't enough evidence to show he did something sexual, and he thought the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was unfair and confusing. After looking closely at all the information, the court agreed with Horn on two main points. The first was that the mention of the lie detector test could have influenced the jury’s decision and that it was serious enough to affect the outcome. The second point was that the way the prosecutor explained the burden of proof to the jury was incorrect and could confuse them about what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Since these mistakes were significant, the court ruled that Horn's conviction should be overturned, and he should have a new trial to make sure he gets a fair chance to defend himself.

HC 2001-0440

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2002
Post category:HC

In OCCA case No. HC 2001-0440, the petitioner appealed his conviction for a sex offense. In a published decision, the court decided to grant extraordinary relief and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the petitioner, who was in prison for serious crimes, requested that he be allowed to receive good time credits that he felt were unfairly taken away. These credits could reduce his prison sentence. The problem arose from a requirement by the Department of Corrections (DOC) that inmates convicted of sex offenses must attend a treatment program. To join this program, inmates need to admit their guilt and provide personal information which could lead to further legal trouble. The petitioner argued that forcing him to admit to crimes he disagreed with violated his constitutional rights, specifically the right not to self-incriminate. Initially, the district court rejected the petitioner’s request for relief, stating he could not prove he would be released even if the credits were restored. The court found that the requirement to participate in the program was not only mandatory but also fair considering the law at that time. Moreover, the court dismissed the petitioner’s concern that these requirements amounted to unfair punishment, calling his claims frivolous. However, the petitioner took his complaint to the appeals court, where he argued that his situation was similar to another case from Kansas, where the courts agreed that inmates should not be forced to incriminate themselves in order to receive treatment. The appeals court acknowledged the need to further investigate this claim and ordered a hearing to gather more facts. During the hearing, the judge found that the DOC policy indeed put significant pressure on inmates to admit guilt, which violated their Fifth Amendment rights. The judge noted that the program's requirement to disclose past crimes, especially with potential consequences for refusing to do so, placed the inmates in a tough spot. The treatment primarily relied on inmates being honest about their past, which was considered coercive. Ultimately, the appeals court sided with the findings of the district court judge. They stated that while the DOC has a right to rehabilitate inmates, the requirement for them to confess and disclose could not override their constitutional protections. Therefore, they ruled in favor of the petitioner, calling for necessary changes in the DOC's policy to ensure that inmates’ rights were not violated. Thus, the case highlighted a significant legal question about balancing the need for rehabilitation with protecting individual rights. The decision pointed out the necessity for the DOC to adjust its programs to eliminate any requirement that might force an inmate to self-incriminate, while still letting them work toward rehabilitation.

F-1999-1652

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 7, 2000
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1652, Mickey Lee Cosar appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided that his termination from the Drug Court program was not handled correctly and mandated a new termination hearing with proper notice. One judge dissented. The case began when Cosar entered a blind plea to the drug charges in September 1998 as part of a condition to join the Drug Court program, which allows individuals to receive treatment instead of immediate punishment. However, during the process, certain legal requirements were not met. A hearing in April 1999 determined that Cosar should be removed from the Drug Court program, which led to a sentencing hearing in May 1999 where he was sentenced to life in prison despite not having any prior serious convictions. On appeal, Cosar argued that he was denied due process because he was improperly arrested, was not given proper notice of the charges against him, and was not presented a fair hearing before a judge. He contended that his sentence was too harsh given his background and that it was improperly based on unproven allegations. The court found merit in Cosar’s claims. It noted that he did not receive written notice of the termination hearing, which is necessary, and that his due process rights were violated. The court emphasized that to follow proper legal procedures, a new hearing must be held where Cosar would receive notice of the reasons for his termination from the Drug Court. This notice must be clear enough for him to prepare a defense. Moreover, the court stated that the sentencing hearing was flawed because the judge considered improper evidence and unsworn testimony. The judge based the harsh life sentence on matters unrelated to the charges for which Cosar was convicted, including knowledge of allegations of a rape and murder that were not properly vetted in court. The decision noted that a judge should only consider evidence presented during the formal hearing process, which did not happen here. The court’s ruling ordered a new termination and, if necessary, a new sentencing hearing to be conducted by a different judge who would base the decision solely on the evidence presented appropriately. The conclusion stressed the importance of following the law to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, particularly within programs aimed at rehabilitating offenders. In summary, Cosar’s appeal highlighted the need for proper legal procedures in termination and sentencing hearings, emphasizing the rights of defendants to fair treatment under the law.