Cleveland Tyson was hired by me in the year of 2009. This is 9 years of experience that he claimed to have in the criminal law field on both the prosecution & defensive sides of the issue. Cleveland was hired to defend me against a charge of making a terroristic threat via landline based telecommunications. These accusations were made by the St.Louis County public works department when finding out that they were authoritatively responsible for helping me and my father with the issue which would create a financial burden onto them to which then these accusations were made.
When hiring Cleveland from the very beginning I paid $1000 for his services up front and he assured me he would be at all court dates and that I had not needed to go to them. He also assured me that his experience within the criminal law field would no doubt resolve the issue with urgency given the community water issue as well as being I was on a $500 bond that limited me to the boundaries of Mo.
but my job required me to travel outside of the state essentially making me unemployed.
The first court date came around and Cleveland assured I didn’t need to go but I felt I needed to face this situation head on. When I arrived at the court house I went to the court room where my case was being heard and looked in but didn’t see Cleveland. I had called to ask if we could talk beforehand to which he responded he was in Chicago. So with all the assurance that he gave me not to worry about going to my court dates had I not gone I would have had a failure to appear charge against me on top of the terroristic threat charge.
This created a sense of uncertainty of Cleveland’s ability to handle my case but he assured it was an honest mistake and that he could take care of it later if I wasn’t there. Being new to the whole criminal courts world I took his word for it but also started my own research as to how this all worked. I went to SLU law library every day that it was open for nonstudents as well as hours upon hours of online research when it was closed.
With Cleveland’s patchy services I felt I had to become more of an involved client. I was asking a lot of legal questions. Cleveland would give responses to them but what was weird was that they were always responses of having inner connections within the court house with his past prosecuting experience and knowing of individuals that worked within. These things were why I hired him but what was troubled with his other responses that were vague and specifics related incorrect from what the Mo. CLE stated as well as RSMO statutes and case law from prior court proceedings.
With this being stated above I had asked about obtaining the discovery (evidence) knowing that I did not nor need not threaten anyone given we were the victims of the water issue just trying to receive help. Within the same time of making a request for discovery he had also requested a suppression of evidence and a suppression of statements. This seems great and very proactive despite the troubling issues that just passed but when looking at the forms he requested to suppress evidence was to the wrong policing agency.
Clayton police department was the arresting agency but Cleveland had requested to suppress evidence from the St.louis county police department. He said this was insignificant and a minor typo and that he could amend it in the future…essentially telling me to again not worry he would handle it later. Not that easy when you cant work anymore which takes away income and the burden of stress that this situation has imposed upon me.
Other issues arising with these motions were the lack of initiative for Cleveland to obtain a copy of the telephone log for the number outlined in the police report of being the originating number of the terroristic threatening phone call. One would think that this would be priority #1 when dealing with a case like this and being Cleveland stated he had handled situations similar to this with phone logs and such that he would know what to do to obtain the correct information that would be undoubtedly and unquestionably apparent to all parties and admissible to the courts under court rules regulating the admittance of business records as evidence.
On the cover letter from the copy of the phone bill Cleveland finally received the date of transmission from the at&t facility is October 30th but the actual request for the information was on October 27th given the date correlation included within the control number given. With that said Cleveland stated that the phone records were requested by him but yet he didn’t request the affidavit from the custodian of records stating that the information within the logs sent is as accurate as the computers can be when tracking this information.
This is a necessity for a business record to be admissible in the courts unless there would later be a trail and then it would call for an individual who is employed by at&t to testify to the findings in person. The first option seems to be the fastest and easiest way to obtain the required information as well as the fastest way to show that no call ever existed in the first place. Cleveland decided to go with option 2 which meant that I had in my hands a copy of a phone bill which showed I was innocent but meant nothing as well as had to continue going to court.
Of course when anyone in my shoes would had received this info from Cleveland and then asked him why no said phone call shows on the log to which he responded, “I don’t know” would question with full scrutiny every move this man made in regards to their case as I did from that moment on. I had requested depositions of the witnesses and victims affected by this alleged reckless and life threatening circumstance involved so that there was some record of what they can account for prior to going to trial…this included the (at the time) acting Executive director Charles Dooley. Cleveland filled for depositions for everyone except Charles Dooley. In fact he stated his reputation was more important than my case and that Charles Dooley had nothing to do with it…but he did and was infact listed as victim #1.
So with all this being said I hope anyone who looks to employ Cleveland Tyson please rethink it. You will be disappointed from the beginning not wanting him to have a chance to “finish it” like he will rebuttal this with.
Law Offices of Cleveland A Tyson Reviews
Cleveland Tyson was hired by me in the year of 2009. This is 9 years of experience that he claimed to have in the criminal law field on both the prosecution & defensive sides of the issue. Cleveland was hired to defend me against a charge of making a terroristic threat via landline based telecommunications. These accusations were made by the St.Louis County public works department when finding out that they were authoritatively responsible for helping me and my father with the issue which would create a financial burden onto them to which then these accusations were made.
When hiring Cleveland from the very beginning I paid $1000 for his services up front and he assured me he would be at all court dates and that I had not needed to go to them. He also assured me that his experience within the criminal law field would no doubt resolve the issue with urgency given the community water issue as well as being I was on a $500 bond that limited me to the boundaries of Mo.
but my job required me to travel outside of the state essentially making me unemployed.
The first court date came around and Cleveland assured I didn’t need to go but I felt I needed to face this situation head on. When I arrived at the court house I went to the court room where my case was being heard and looked in but didn’t see Cleveland. I had called to ask if we could talk beforehand to which he responded he was in Chicago. So with all the assurance that he gave me not to worry about going to my court dates had I not gone I would have had a failure to appear charge against me on top of the terroristic threat charge.
This created a sense of uncertainty of Cleveland’s ability to handle my case but he assured it was an honest mistake and that he could take care of it later if I wasn’t there. Being new to the whole criminal courts world I took his word for it but also started my own research as to how this all worked. I went to SLU law library every day that it was open for nonstudents as well as hours upon hours of online research when it was closed.
With Cleveland’s patchy services I felt I had to become more of an involved client. I was asking a lot of legal questions. Cleveland would give responses to them but what was weird was that they were always responses of having inner connections within the court house with his past prosecuting experience and knowing of individuals that worked within. These things were why I hired him but what was troubled with his other responses that were vague and specifics related incorrect from what the Mo. CLE stated as well as RSMO statutes and case law from prior court proceedings.
With this being stated above I had asked about obtaining the discovery (evidence) knowing that I did not nor need not threaten anyone given we were the victims of the water issue just trying to receive help. Within the same time of making a request for discovery he had also requested a suppression of evidence and a suppression of statements. This seems great and very proactive despite the troubling issues that just passed but when looking at the forms he requested to suppress evidence was to the wrong policing agency.
Clayton police department was the arresting agency but Cleveland had requested to suppress evidence from the St.louis county police department. He said this was insignificant and a minor typo and that he could amend it in the future…essentially telling me to again not worry he would handle it later. Not that easy when you cant work anymore which takes away income and the burden of stress that this situation has imposed upon me.
Other issues arising with these motions were the lack of initiative for Cleveland to obtain a copy of the telephone log for the number outlined in the police report of being the originating number of the terroristic threatening phone call. One would think that this would be priority #1 when dealing with a case like this and being Cleveland stated he had handled situations similar to this with phone logs and such that he would know what to do to obtain the correct information that would be undoubtedly and unquestionably apparent to all parties and admissible to the courts under court rules regulating the admittance of business records as evidence.
On the cover letter from the copy of the phone bill Cleveland finally received the date of transmission from the at&t facility is October 30th but the actual request for the information was on October 27th given the date correlation included within the control number given. With that said Cleveland stated that the phone records were requested by him but yet he didn’t request the affidavit from the custodian of records stating that the information within the logs sent is as accurate as the computers can be when tracking this information.
This is a necessity for a business record to be admissible in the courts unless there would later be a trail and then it would call for an individual who is employed by at&t to testify to the findings in person. The first option seems to be the fastest and easiest way to obtain the required information as well as the fastest way to show that no call ever existed in the first place. Cleveland decided to go with option 2 which meant that I had in my hands a copy of a phone bill which showed I was innocent but meant nothing as well as had to continue going to court.
Of course when anyone in my shoes would had received this info from Cleveland and then asked him why no said phone call shows on the log to which he responded, “I don’t know” would question with full scrutiny every move this man made in regards to their case as I did from that moment on. I had requested depositions of the witnesses and victims affected by this alleged reckless and life threatening circumstance involved so that there was some record of what they can account for prior to going to trial…this included the (at the time) acting Executive director Charles Dooley. Cleveland filled for depositions for everyone except Charles Dooley. In fact he stated his reputation was more important than my case and that Charles Dooley had nothing to do with it…but he did and was infact listed as victim #1.
So with all this being said I hope anyone who looks to employ Cleveland Tyson please rethink it. You will be disappointed from the beginning not wanting him to have a chance to “finish it” like he will rebuttal this with.