CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

February 26, 2009

BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK FOR JUDGES IN SOUTH TEXAS

Filed under: Federal Defense Attorney — Tags: , , , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:06 am

Judges Reap What They Sowed

By Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

There may be no Hero to the rescue in this dark drama hanging over the state and federal judiciaries in South Texas. The clouds in the horizon are as ominous as those that preceded Hurricane Ike last September. A sitting federal judge, the Honorable Samuel Kent who formerly oversaw maritime law cases for the past seventeen years in Galveston, was facing trial in a Houston federal district court on federal sex crime charges. The local media was reporting that attorneys who regularly practiced before Judge Kent were following the case with utter amazement and, we suspect, a near morbid fascination.

According to media reports, Judge Kent dominated proceedings before him with a harsh gavel and was known for what the Houston Chronicle called “biting written opinions.” Life indeed has a peculiar knack for turning things topsy-turvy. So it was with Judge Kent who found himself facing trial on five sexual abuse charges involving two former employees and one charge of lying to a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judicial commission assigned to investigate the sexual abuse allegations.

Represented by the preeminent Houston criminal defense attorney Dick DeGuerin, Judge Kent had been vociferous in his protestations of innocence during pre-trial court proceedings. Through a number of pre-trial pleadings, DeGuerin indicated a series of seemingly conflicting defenses: 1) the employees consented, 2) the judge suffers from erectile dysfunction, and 3) the judge is so consumed by such a powerful ego that he may not have been able to discern if the employees actually consented to alleged sexual advances he made towards them.

A recent Chronicle article about the Kent case quoted Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh expert on federal judicial discipline: “This is unprecedented,” Hellman said, pointing out that a few other federal judges have faced criminal trials involving “money and corruption” issues but none for sex offenses. (more…)

February 21, 2009

Defense Lawyers Must Prepare for Federal Sentencing

Filed under: federal Appeals Attorney — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 4:52 pm

Defense Lawyers Must Prepare for Federal Sentencing

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

The United States Supreme Court in 1996 held that federal district court judges had discretion to depart from the recommendations of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. See: Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 91, 98 (1996).

Some of these judges – many of whom were placed on the federal bench during the 12-year presidential reign of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush because they shared the politically conservative views of judges like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas – viewed Koon as a judicial license to enhance criminal sentences as part of the Republicans’ “war on crime.” See: United States v. Weisser, 417 F.3d 336, 346 (2nd Cir. 2005) [reversal of a district court judge’s sentence based upon multiple enhancements including a 13-level increase in the offense level and a three-level increase in the criminal history level].

Nine years after Koon – a case involving one of the Los Angeles police officers convicted in the infamous “Rodney King” freeway beating – the Supreme Court handed down United States v. Booker which limited the discretion of federal judges to enhance sentences by ruling that the Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. See: 543 U.S. 220, 245-46 (2005).

Booker instructed federal judges that in sentencing matters they could only consider facts for enhancement that are: (1) reflected in the jury verdict; (2) admitted by the defendant; (3) contained in the defendant’s guilty plea; or (4) pertain to a prior conviction. Id. Beyond these factors, the jury had to find facts true beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant enhancement. Id.

Two terms later the Supreme Court reinforced Booker with two strong sentencing decisions. First, in Rita v. United States the court held that any sentence imposed consistent with the Booker rule had to be presumed “reasonable” when reviewed on appeal by the federal appellate courts. See: 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2463 (2007). (more…)

February 14, 2009

OBJECTIONS, BOLSTERING, AND APPELLATE REVIEW

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 6:33 pm

Objections to Bolstering Testimony Should Communicate Evidentiary Basis

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

The Texas Rules of Evidence, Article 103, requires that a timely objection be based on a specific ground in order to preserve for appellate review an alleged trial error concerning the admissibility of evidence.

An en banc Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seventeen years ago held that “… all a party has to do to avoid the forfeiture of a complaint on appeal is to let the trial judge know what he wants, why he thinks himself entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him at a time when the trial court is in a proper position to do something about it. Of course, when it seems from context that a party failed effectively to communicate his desire, then reviewing courts should not hesitate to hold that appellate complaints arising from the event have been lost. But otherwise, they should reach the merits of those complaints without requiring that the parties read some special script to make their wishes known.” See: Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex.Crim. App. 1992).

The Court of Criminal Appeals recently reaffirmed the Lankston principle that objections to the admissibility of evidence must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for appellate review. See: Rivas v. State, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 98 (Jan. 28, 2009). The Rivas court rejuvenated the language of Lankston to set the stage for its ultimate ruling, saying:

“Our system of justice is characteristically adversarial. One consequence is that many substantive and procedural features, especially most evidentiary rules, are really optional with the parties. Although we may speak of evidence as inadmissible, it is more precise, if not more correct, to say that the rules make such evidence objectionable. Indeed, this is just another way of calling attention to the fact that no issue concerning the admissibility of evidence ever arises unless one of the parties objects to it.

”It follows that the trial judge’s role in the admission and exclusion of evidence is generally not called into play unless a dispute develops between the parties concerning the proper application of an evidentiary rule. And because, absent any such dispute, our system generally expects him not to interfere with the presentation of evidence, it likewise does not fault him for refusing to interfere when a party fails to make the basis for his objection known. Beyond this, there are no technical considerations or form of words to be used. Straightforward communication in plain English will always suffice.” Id., at LEXIS 1-2. (more…)

February 11, 2009

ANDRE THOMAS: INSANE IN TEXAS

Filed under: Death Penalty Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 5:38 am

Executing the Insane: Past Witch Hunt; Current Shame

By Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Just after noon on December 9, 2008 a corrections officer assigned to Texas’ death row was making a normal security round in Building 10 when he observed what appeared to be blood on the face of condemned inmate Andre Thomas. The inmate told the officer he had pulled out his last good eye and eaten it. Prison doctors quickly determined the condemned inmate needed additional medical treatment. Security staff transported him to the East Texas Medical Center in Tyler. After Thomas received medical treatment, the Texas Department of Public Safety and Corrections transferred him to the Jester 4 Psychiatric Unit in Richmond where he remains as of this writing.

Andre Thomas is no doubt still insane today. He was also insane on March 27, 2004 when he slaughtered three people. In fact, he was insane long before March 27, 2004. Everyone in Grayson County seemed to know it. Leyha Marie Hughes’ father especially knew it, He repeatedly told the local police after his daughter’s murder that “Andre Thomas was crazy, unstable, everyone knew him and his entire family was crazy.” Even Thomas himself seem to know he was crazy. As the Grits-for-Breakfast blog reported on January 21, 2009, Thomas twice unsuccessfully sought psychiatric help from a Grayson County hospital before March 27, 2004—the day he killed Leyha Marie Hughes. In fact, the very day before he killed the little 13-month-old Leyha, a social worker named Sherrie St. Cyr and physician named William Bowen spoke to Thomas in the emergency room at the Texoma Medical Center. Both thought he was psychotic and should be admitted to a psychiatric facility. But, tragically, he was not.

Finally, on March 27, 2004, it happened. What Leyha’s father knew would happen at some time. Something snapped inside the disordered head of Andre Thomas. He walked to the home of his ex-wife, Laura Boren Thomas. Armed with a knife, he arrived at the residence at 7:22 a.m. He kicked in the front door. He found Laura, their four-year-old-son Andre, and baby Leyha home alone. What happened next was a “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” revisited. Andre repeatedly stabbed Laura, Andre, and Leyha before brutally mutilating them by removing their hearts from their lifeless bodies. Each victim was left with large, gaping wounds in their chest.

Thomas placed the three bloody hearts in his pockets and calmly walked out of the house. He must have felt pretty good. He had just finished “God’s work.” He believed the three people he had just slaughtered were “evil” and possessed by demons. God had recently told him that Laura had been acting like a “jezebel” and that little Andre was the “anti-Christ.” (more…)

February 7, 2009

OBSCENE EMAILS AND CARTOONS NOT PROTECTED BY FIRST AMENDMENT

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:25 pm

Obscene Drawings, Cartoons, Sculpture, Paintings that Depict Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct Not Protected Free Speech

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

On March 30, 2004, Dwight Whorley visited a public resource room maintained by the Virginia Employment Commission in Richmond. The room is equipped with Commission computers, printers and copiers which may be used by job seekers. A woman in the room noticed that Whorley was receiving what appeared to her as child pornography on a Commission computer. She promptly alerted Commission staff about suspicions. An officer manager and two supervisors went to the resource room where they found Whorley standing in front of a printer with some papers in his hand. One of the supervisors requested that Whorley show him the documents. Whorley complied. The documents depicted Japanese anime-style cartoons of children engaged in explicit sexual conduct with adults.

The office manager made a determination that Whorley had inappropriately used the Commission’s computer, restricted him from further use of the computer, and escorted him from the premises. The manager then returned to the computer Whorley had been using and found his Yahoo e-mail account was still open. Commission employees discovered several more copies of the sexually explicit anime-style cartoons by the computer. After printing off several of Whorley’s e-mails and removing the computer from service, the Commission office manager notified his supervisor and state police about the incident.

A subsequent law enforcement investigation determined that Whorley was already on a federal probation for a 1999 conviction for downloading child pornography on a Virginia Commonwealth University computer at the time of the Commission incident. The local U.S. Attorney’s Office presented to a grand jury the cartoons copied by Whorley at the Commission room, the data in the computer he used in the room, and information received from Yahoo about his e-mail account. Based on this evidence, the grand jury returned a 75-count indictment against Whorley alleging:

Counts 1-20 charged that on March 30, 2004 Whorley knowingly received obscene cartoons in interstate and foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462. These counts were based on 20 cartoons depicting prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit acts (including masturbation, intercourse, and oral sex) with adults, some of which were coerced. (more…)

February 4, 2009

IS LARRY RAY SWEARINGEN GUILTY OF CAPITAL MURDER?

Filed under: Death Penalty Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:18 am

Actual Innocence Not Recognized Ground for Relief in Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisprudence

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

Is Larry Ray Swearingen guilty of capital murder? The State of Texas, through Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney Marc Brumberger, believes that he is. The parents of Melissa Trotter, Charles and Sandra Trotter, believe that he is. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals believes that he is.

But Swearingen’s attorney, James Rytting, the New York-based Innocence Project, and a host of forensic pathologists, including Glenn Larkin, strenuously believe that he is not. As Larkin recently told Texas Monthly Magazine: “no rational and intellectually honest person can look at the evidence and conclude Larry Swearingen is guilty of this horrible crime.” While the Houston Chronicle, in a January 23, 2009 editorial, did not go as far as Larkin, the respected editorial board of the newspaper said: “He may not be a saint, but Swearingen does not deserve to die for someone else’s crime.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is not concerned one way or the other about Swearingen’s guilt or innocence. The appeals court has long held that the execution of an inmate who has demonstrated “actual innocence” does not offend federal due process of law. The appeals court, however, recently stayed Swearingen’s pending execution and ordered a hearing to determine (1) if state prosecutors engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and (2) if he was adequately represented at trial by defense counsel. See: In Re: Larry Ray Swearingen, No. 09-20024, Jan. 26, 2009 [Online citation unavailable].

We cannot conclude whether Swearingen is innocent or guilty. Our intent is to lay out the legal and factual background of his case so our readers can draw their own conclusions based upon the evidence we’ve gleaned from the public record and court decisions.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

Larry Ray Swearingen, an electrician who lived in Willis, Texas, was arrested on December 11, 1998 by Montgomery County law enforcement authorities on outstanding charges unrelated to the murder of Melissa Trotter. (more…)

Powered by WordPress © 2010 John T. Floyd III Crimnal Defense Attorney : Webmaster Kevin Grey Lee