CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Following Booker, Kimbrough, Rita and Gall; District Courts Exercising Power to Sentence as Deemed Appropriate, Considering Case-Specific Factors, § 3553(a)

By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Senior Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Before 1984, criminal sentencing in federal courts was heavily criticized because of the disparate sentences imposed for similar conduct and because of the uncertainty as to the length of time offenders would actually serve in prison. But Congress changed all that with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Act was designed to produce a more even-handed determinate sentencing scheme. To accomplish this legislative objective, the Act imposed an absolute duty on federal district court judges to consider each of the seven sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), required federal judges to accept the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, and abolished the federal parole system as well. The end result of the Act, however, quickly proved to be even more draconian than hodgepodge sentencing practices it had replaced. Federal prison sentences grew longer because of the mandatory Guidelines, and because of the abolition of parole, longer stays in federal prison became the order of the day.

Three years ago the United States Supreme Court created a hope of relief when it declared unconstitutional the determinate sentencing provisions of the Act. See: United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005). The court remedied the constitutional dilemma created by the mandatory nature of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines by holding that the Guidelines are only one factor federal judges must consider in sentencing. The court concluded the Guidelines are advisory and, therefore, federal judges have the discretion to impose a sentence more appropriate than one mandated by the Guidelines. Id., at 245-46.

Booker also ushered in a change in the way sentences are reviewed on appeal. It limited appellate review to a determination of whether a sentence is “reasonable” under the strict “abuse-of discretion” standard. Id., at 261. In cases involving sentences departing either up or down from the Guidelines, the appeal courts’ review the district court’s explanation for the departure is confined to a determination of whether the sentence is “reasonable” under a strict “abuse-of-discretion” standard. While an appeal courts may consider the “variance” and “extent” of departure, it cannot require that “extraordinary” circumstances exist to justify the departure or that district courts employ a rigid “mathematical formula” using a departure’s percentage as justification for a specific sentence. Applying these approaches, the Supreme Court said, would create an impermissible “presumption of unreasonableness.” Id. The court, therefore, concluded that the “abuse-of-discretion” standard should apply to all sentences, regardless of whether they are inside or outside the range of the Guidelines. Id.

In its last term, the Supreme Court handed down three significant decisions in its continuing effort to provide guidance through the labyrinth of the federal sentencing process. Those decisions are summarized below.

• Kimbrough v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 558 (2007) – The court rejected the longstanding premise that federal district courts had to apply provisions of the Guidelines that effectively made one gram of crack cocaine the equivalent of 100 grams of powder cocaine in sentencing determinations and instead held that those provisions are just one factor the sentencing court should consider as it attempts to fashion the appropriate sentence pursuant to § 3553(a). Id., at 575.
• Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007) – The Court held that in cases involving sentences imposed within the range of the Guidelines, the appeals court may establish a “presumption of reasonableness” for those sentences and review them under the deferential “abuse-of-discretion” standard. Id., at 2465.
• Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586 (U.S. 2007) – The Court held that sentencing decisions must be reviewed on appeal strictly under the deferential “abuse-of-discretion” standard, even when the appeals court determines that a different sentence is more appropriate. Id., at 597. (more…)

False Allegations of Rape, Convictions Based Exclusively on Uncorroborated Testimony

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Senior Paralegal Billy Sinclair

18 years ago Robert McClendon, then 34 years of age, was convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life in Franklin County, Ohio for allegedly raping a 10-year-old girl. Prosecutors charged that McClendon took a 10-year-old relative from her backyard and drove her to another house where he raped her. There was no physical evidence linking him to the alleged rape. The prosecution relied almost exclusively on the testimony of the child victim. The prosecution’s belief that it had the “right man” was influenced by the fact that McClendon, when he was 19 years of age, had been convicted of “corruption of a minor” involving consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl.

McClendon would have spent the rest of his life in prison. He had already been denied parole release in 2007. Parole release is nearly impossible for an inmate who refuses to acknowledge his guilt for the crime for which he stands convicted. But then in 2007 two law students, Dan O’Brien and Mike Harrington, who were working with the Ohio Innocence Project based with the University of Cincinnati Law School, were assigned McClendon’s case. They called the prosecutor’s office and learned that a pair of underpants worn by the victim had been sitting around the prosecutor’s office for years.

The Ohio Innocence Project, joined by the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, started applying pressure to have McClendon’s DNA compared to samples found in the victim’s underwear. Testing ultimately demonstrated that McClendon’s DNA did not match the DNA in the victim’s underpants.

Earlier this year two other UC law students, Megan Tonner and Courtney Cunningham, took over the case for the Innocence Project. They filed a motion for a new trial. On August 11, 2008 state District Court Judge Charles Schneider granted the motion and ordered McClendon freed from prison.

“You know, you go through times where you feel it might not happen, but you never, ever give up hope,” McClendon was quoted by Associated Press after his release. “You don’t ever use the word, ‘never happen.’ It’s not healthy.” (more…)

Two Cases of Child Murder; Only One Faces Death Penalty

By: Criminal Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John T. Floyd and Senior Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The District Attorney’s Office in Galveston, Texas, has in recent months confronted death penalty decisions in two high profile cases involving parents brutally murdering their children. Both cases allegedly involved parents killing their children in a calculated, premeditated manner. In April 2008 the District Attorney elected not to seek the death penalty in one case but in August 2008 decided to seek the death penalty in the other. Why?

Let it be stated very firmly at the outset of this piece that we do not support the death penalty in any case under any circumstances. We are a criminal defense law firm dedicated to the preservation of life and liberty– not death. But the disparity in the decision-making by the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office in these two capital child murder cases begs scrutiny.

The first case involves Riley Ann Sawyers, a beautiful two-year-old child who became known to the nation as “Baby Grace.” The child’s biological mother, Kimberly Trenor, and her stepfather, Royce Zeigler II, were reportedly upset with the child’s manners. By the mother’s account, Riley Ann either did not know when or how to say “please” and “no sir.” So the parents decided to discipline the child. This allegedly led to a, enraged and brutal beating that killed the child. In October 2007, a fisherman found a plastic storage box floating in Galveston bay containing Riley Ann’s body, which had been wrapped in trash bags.

The second case involves Alijah Mullis whose diaper-clad three-month old body was discovered in January 2008 in an isolated area on the eastern end of Galveston Island by a couple cruising for wildlife. The child’s father, Travis Mullis, allegedly dumped the body there after repeatedly stomping on the child’s head, snuffing out its precious life. The child’s mother, Karen Kohberger, said Mullis indicated to her shortly before the child’s death that he was having flashbacks from being sexually abused as a child. (more…)

By Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

Most people automatically assume that when they board a commercial or chartered bus, they will safely reach their destination. Greyhound and Trailways over a four decade period from the 1940s through the 1970s ingrained that assumption in the American psyche. Before the explosion of air travel in this country in the 1980s, bus travel was considered an economically efficient and fairly comfortable way of traveling across a nation that spans four time zones.

But then another facet of traditional American life began to sour. Bus accidents became more frequent, and increasingly more deadly – especially in Texas whose highways are notoriously crowded with F150s and SUVs, all seemingly in a hurry to get somewhere fast. The following is a list of fatal bus crashes in Texas over the past five years as reported by Associated Press (Aug. 8, 2008):

• February 4, 2003 – A chartered bus carrying a church group crossed a median and collided with an SUV just south of Waco, killing five bus passengers and two SUV passengers and injuring dozens more.
• May 24, 2004 – A chartered casino bus traveling down Interstate 10 in Southeast Texas returning Texas residents from Louisiana collided with an 18-wheeler, killing one bus passenger and sending numerous others to area hospitals.
• September 23, 2005 – As Hurricane Rita barreled toward the Texas coast, a bus carrying 44 nursing home residents and staffers was rocked by a series of explosions after one of its wheels caught on fire on Interstate 45 near Dallas, killing 23 residents. The National Transportation Safety Board in 2007 faulted the bus company and a federal vehicle safety agency in the fire.
• October 25, 2005 – A tour bus crossed Interstate 35 in San Antonio after tire blew out and crashed into two 18-wheelers, killing the bus driver and injuring two bus passengers and the driver of one of the trucks.
• March 30, 2006 – A bus carrying a Beaumont high school girls’ soccer team to a playoff game in Humble rolled onto its side on Highway 90 near Devers, killing two of the teenage girls.
• January 2, 2008 – A chartered bus from Mexico on its way to Houston rolled onto its side near Victoria and was struck by a pickup truck, killing one person and injuring dozens of others.

Then on August 8, 2008 the unspeakable happened. A chartered bus carrying a Vietnamese Catholic church group from Houston to a religious festival in Missouri crashed onto its side into a guard railing after an illegal re-treaded tire blew out on a freeway in Sherman, Texas. Seventeen passengers died – fourteen at the scene – and another 40 were injured, many critically. It was a tragedy that should not have happened. The company that owned the bus, Angel Tours, has been cited for a laundry list of safety violations; the driver of the bus has a history of unsafe driving and substance abuse violations; and the bus itself had been declared unsafe to drive outside the state of Texas. (more…)

By Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John T. Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

The State of Texas executed two foreign nationals during the week of August 5 and 7, 2008. Both men, Jose Ernesto Medellin and Heliberto Chi, were found guilty of committing brutal murders. There was little doubt about their guilt. Had they not been foreign nationals, their executions would have passed under the Texas execution radar basically unnoticed. This is a sad fact in this great state where executions have become all too common.

But they were foreign nationals and their executions had, and will continue to have, international legal and political implications. The controversy associated with these executions centers on this country’s refusal to honor - if not the intent, the spirit – of its international treaty obligations. The treaty obligation in Medellin’s case involved Vienna Convention which provides that when a person is arrested in a foreign country, the arresting officials have an obligation to inform that person of his/her right to consult with, and seek assistance from, the “consular” of their country. Medellin, a Mexican national, was not advised of his “consular rights” when arrested in Harris County in 1994.

Chi’s case, a Honduran national, involved a different treaty – a 1927 U.S. Bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights with Honduras. Unlike the Vienna Convention, the Honduran Bilateral Treaty was “self-executing” – meaning the treaty did not require legislation by the United States Congress to have full force and effect. Last March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Medellin case that the Vienna Convention was not self-executing and, therefore, did not have automatic effect on federal law in this country because Congress had never passed legislation to give rights guaranteed under the treaty full legal force.

The Vienna Convention became a bone of international contention in 2004 when the International Court of Justice, located in the Hague, issued a decision that said the United States had violated the “consular rights” of 51 Mexican nationals convicted of capital crimes in this country and, therefore, they were entitled to a review of their convictions and death sentences. Although his case was not one of the 51 Mexican nationals involved in the ICJ decision, Medellin’s case became the one that ultimately worked its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and led to the precedent ruling that the Vienna Convention was not “self executing.” (more…)

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John T. Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

On July 23, 2008 the State of Mississippi executed Dale Leo Bishop for his involvement in the beating death of 22-year-old Marcus James Gentry. The Bishop execution was significant only because he became the third person put to death in this country who did not actually kill the victim while the actual killer received life imprisonment.

In 1998 Bishop, Gentry, and Jessie Johnson engaged in a night of heavy drinking and drug use. They ended up in Gentry’s car on an isolated dirt road near Saltillo, a community in northern Mississippi. A dispute broke out among the men leading Johnson and Bishop to attack Gentry. Johnson struck Gentry 23 times with a hammer before it lodged in the victim’s throat. Bishop was convicted because he held Gentry by the neck during the murderous assault.

Johnson was tried separately from Bishop, convicted, and received a life sentence without parole. Bishop was also convicted by a jury, but elected to have the trial judge impose sentencing. Even though Johnson admitted that he struck the fatal blows that killed Gentry, the judge nonetheless sentenced Bishop to death.

The two others cases in which the actual killer received life while the lesser participant was put to death were Steven Hatch, who was put to death in Oklahoma in 1996, and Doyle Skillern, who was put to death in Texas in 1985. (more…)

By:  Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

How would you feel if you had never been a member of any nation’s military, had never fought alongside any nation’s armed forces, and had never borne arms against the United States anywhere in the world but were suddenly designated an “enemy combatant” by the President of the United States, placed in solitary confinement in a military prison for five years, subjected to torture, held incommunicado from family and attorney, and never had any formal charges brought against you?

Apparently, some in the Government of the United States of America believe that the President has the constitutional authority to do precisely that to any person lawfully living in this country or even, potentially, to any American citizen.

Al Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a citizen of Omar, entered the United States on September 10, 2001. He was accompanied by his wife and children. He came to this country to pursue a master’s degree at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. He had already earned a bachelor’s degree from the university in 1991.

Then the unspeakable, the unimaginable happened. Foreign-born terrorists – mostly from Saudi Arabia, a longtime American oil ally – hijacked four commercial airliners and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center’s twin towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania killing and injuring thousands of Americans. (more…)