CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

May 30, 2009

THAT NAGGING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DEBATE

Filed under: Immigration Defense Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 10:42 am

THAT NAGGING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DEBATE

No Probations for Illegal Aliens: The Problem with Blanket Law Enforcement Policies on Undocumented Immigrants

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In September 2006 Houston police officer Rodney Johnson was shot in the back of the head by an illegal immigrant the officer had just arrested following a routine traffic stop. And in March 2009 Houston police officer Rick Salter was shot in the face by an illegal immigrant during a narcotics raid. He remains in critical condition. Both of these shootings of law enforcement officers by illegal immigrants triggered intense criticism from Houston Mayor Bill White and Police Chief Harold Hurtt against federal immigration officials for their alleged failure to secure the nation’s southern borders and for failing to aggressively push for the removal of illegal immigrants in this state.

This immigration debate is a bitter affair. There seems to be rational middle ground to discuss the issue because it has been so politicized. For example, the debate was again inflamed earlier this year when Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos announced that her office was considering creating a policy that would recommend denial of probation to any illegal immigrant arrested and convicted of a felony in Harris County. The proposed “no-probation” policy drew instant outrage from local Hispanic leaders, criminal defense attorneys, and prominent legal scholars who questioned its constitutionality.

On April 19, 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano gave ammunition to those who argue that the “no-probation” policy would be unconstitutional when she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning talk show that illegally entering the United States is not per se a “crime.” Napolitano’s comment triggered yet another firestorm of controversy led by conservative bloggers and radio talk show hosts who claim the federal statute prohibiting illegal entry into the United States makes such an entry a “crime.”

The federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1325, makes it a misdemeanor offense subject to fine or six-month imprisonment for anyone entering the United States illegally. Its sister statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, makes it a felony offense for anyone to reenter or attempt to reenter the U.S. after being removed or deported from this country. (more…)

May 22, 2009

THE GITMO DILEMMA

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 4:24 pm

Don’t We Have Prison Space for a Few More?

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

Shortly after assuming the presidency, Barak Obama announced his intention to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which currently houses 240 individuals classified as “enemy combatants” suspected of having engaged in some form of terrorism against the United States. The president stated that he was studying the various options for dealing with these detainees.

The proposed closure of “Gitmo,” as the military facility is now known, drew expected criticism from Republicans and right-wing spokesman like former Vice President Dick Cheney who accused the president of compromising the nation’s security interests. Failing to get a specific plan about what would be done with the “detainees” currently housed there, conservative and moderate Democrats gradually cuddled up to drumbeat of right-wing hysteria being promoted by Cheney and Rush Limbaugh and refused to stand by the president.

On May 20, 2009, the U.S. Senate, with overwhelming bipartisan support, voted 90-6 to block President’s Obama request for funds necessary to shutdown the Gitmo facility.

“One thing [President Obama] has to do is begin to articulate the specifics of a plan for closing Guantanamo,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster with close ties to the congressional leaders. “The Hill needs to hear that.”

Echoing sentiments held by former Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was asleep at the wheel leading up to the 9/11 attacks, recently warned congressional leaders that placing Gitmo detainees in the nation’s prison system could influence the “radicalization” of other inmates should they be placed in this system.

The FBI director should stick to law enforcement because he knows nothing about the nation’s prison subculture. In the first place, only a couple dozen of the 240 detainees currently housed at Gitmo would be transferred to federal prisons where they would be immediately, and permanently, placed in maximum security lockdown. The majority of the rest would be farmed out to Saudi Arabia where they would be put through that country’s “terrorist rehabilitation” program which has enjoyed some success. The remaining few, and the least dangerous, could be released to their country of origin.

During the Bush administration, some 500 suspected “enemy combatants” were released from Gitmo—either because they were innocent to begin with or because the nation’s military intelligence personnel felt combatants no longer posed a security threat to this country. Pentagon figures show that somewhere between 11 to 14 percent of those released returned to “militant activities.” An 85 percent success rate is not bad for any prisoner release program not based on “individual rehabilitation.” The nation’s regular prison system, which is based on the “rehabilitation” model, enjoys a success rate of around 55 percent.

With respect as to how to handle dangerous terrorists, the nation’s prison system has a historical and legal precedent for keeping “militant” inmates is long term maximum security lockdown. Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace, both suspected of being former Black Panther Party members, were kept in maximum security lockdown for 35 years in the Louisiana State Penitentiary for the 1972 murder of a prison guard before a federal judge ordered their release from lockdown in 2007. Prison officials quickly returned them to lockdown on trumped up disciplinary charges within weeks of their release from solitary.

As for Mueller’s “radicalization” charge, the nation’s federal prison system is controlled by Mexican or other Latin American gangs—most of whom have direct affiliations with some of the most violent and well-organized drug cartels in the world. They could care less about the Koran, Allah, or “radical Islam.” They are about greed, profit and violence—not religion or justice. Realistically, the Federal Bureau of Prisons could simply put the worst, and the most dangerous, “terrorists” in the general inmate population of the average medium or maximum security facility and they would have to kowtow to the gangs just to survive with their lives, and some with their manhood.

Whether laced in long term maximum security lockdown in a “super max” prison or in general inmate population, given the increased scrutiny these Gitmo detainees would enjoy, they would have about as much success “radicalizing” other inmates as the CIA has enjoyed tracking down and killing Osama bin Laden. After all, you can’t do too much “radicalizing” from solitary confinement.

Remove the political posturing from the debate and the “Gitmo” dilemma could easily be resolved. Clear out one wing in one of the nation’s most secure “super max” federal prisons either in Marion, Illinois or Florence, Colorado; staff this wing with trained security personnel; install sophisticated security monitoring systems; and keep the two-dozen most dangerous terrorists in lockdown for the next fifty years or until they die, whichever comes first. Politics aside, treating these men as normal convicts within the prison system, with the typical threat assessments, classifications and housing placements, would likely adequately solve most of the issues.

The simple reality is that terrorists are not going to be released into American communities as Karl Rove-inspired Republicans have tried to frighten the public into believing. It’s pure nonsense, and dangerous politics. This nation, and the president, faces too many other very real and potentially catastrophic crises to be side-tracked by the so-called “Gitmo dilemma.” This problem is too important to be influenced by the likes of FBI Director Mueller who cannot point to a single instance where a convicted “terrorist” housed in an American prison has “radicalized” either a Muslim or non-Muslim inmate enough to carry out a terrorist attack against America; or conservative Republicans who spread the unfounded fears that terrorists are about to be released into American communities where they can turn our children into “suicide bombers.”

President Obama should give Congress a plan. Release most of the Gitmo detainees into Saudi Arabia’s “terrorist rehabilitation” program. Transfer the remaining and most dangerous others to American federal prisons; try them before military tribunals; and if found guilty and their convictions upheld on appeal, imprison them for the rest of their lives in a maximum security lockdown status where they will grow old and die in anonymity.

That will eliminate whatever national security threat these particular terrorists pose to this country and restore America’s legal and moral standing in the international community. What is so hard about that?

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

May 19, 2009

THE RIGHT TO KNOW IN THE REAL WORLD

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 12:47 pm

The President’s Balancing Act; Public’s Right to know, Due Process for Terrorist

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

President Barak Obama has drawn considerable political flak recently from liberal Democrats, human rights groups, and “left-leaning” bloggers for two terror-related decisions: the decision to fight the court-ordered release of dozens of photos of terror suspects being subjected to torture interrogation techniques; and the decision to resurrect the military tribunals set up during the Bush administration to try terror suspects. This new wave of criticism from the president’s natural base of supporters comes of the heels of massive political flak he incurred several weeks ago from Republicans, right-wing radio talk show hosts, and the “new voice” of the Republican Party, former vice-president Dick Cheney, concerning the administration’s decision to release of U.S. Justice Department “terror memos” authorizing CIA torture interrogations in 2002.

Our first observation about these recent politically-motivated turn of events is this: in order to receive that kind of criticism from so many diverse political perspectives—all of which are promoting pushing some kind of out of the mainstream agenda—it is a clear indication that President Obama is doing the “right thing” and trying to serve both the constitutional and security interests of this nation.

We have written rather extensively in the past about a laundry list of the “war-on-terror” issues: torture, secret prisons, CIA-kidnappings of terror suspects, military tribunals, abuses to the great writ of habeas corpus, and the infamous terror “memos.” We are by no means “experts” on these issues but we do have the natural ability to distinguish between necessary restrictions and the flagrant disregard for sacred constitutional principles in the Bush-declared “war on terror.” The Bush administration—led by the likes of Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and Donald Rumsfeld—manipulated legitimate “national security interests” to justify a host of illegal activity and constitutional abuses: torture of terror suspects, illegal surveillance of American citizens, criminal kidnappings of innocent individuals on foreign soil, denial of basic human and civil rights, to name only a few.

So we naturally supported President’s Obama’s release of the terror “memos” in an April 21, 2009 article (“The CIA Terror Memos”); and as a matter of presenting a balanced perspective, we posted another on May 9, 2009 (“A Defense Against Torture”) offering a defense for those former Justice Department officials who authorized the CIA torture interrogations.

Any weighing of “national security” and “constitutional” interests demands a measured, balanced response. If the ideologues on either the right or left are allowed to control this decision-making process, abuses of both interests are inevitable. Fanatics of any political stripe are dangerous to our founding principles of democracy. A mere review of all the failed democracies that litter the landscape of history will show that it was the fanatics who destroyed them.

That’s why we support the president’s decision to fight the court-ordered release of the photos of the terror interrogations. First, court orders are not always right. How many “court orders” have sent innocent people to prison? And how many lower court orders have later been declared unconstitutional or based on unsound legal principles? Our law books are filled with reversed court-orders. The president not only has a right but a duty to seek a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court–the U.S. Supreme Court—on such a thorny constitutional issue.

Second, President Obama is the nation’s commander-in-chief. He has a fundamental duty to protect the thousands of military personnel who are currently in “harm’s way” on foreign soil. The highest ranking military officers in this country have advised him that the release of those photos would place these military personnel at greater risk of harm. The president had a constitutional duty, above and beyond all others, to heed the advice of his military advisors not to release photos that could cause harm to our military personnel.  Presidents, democrat and republican, have juggled this political “hot potato” throughout the history of this country.

Finally, what legitimate “right to know” interests would be served by releasing the photos? None. The president has already released the detailed torture memos that unequivocally informed the American public that the CIA engaged in enhanced and torture interrogation techniques. Those memos informed the American public about not only how but why U.S. Justice Department officials authorized those interrogation techniques. The American public is not a “torture voyeur” who wants or needs to see CIA personnel water boarding or slapping around terror suspects. The ACLU and Huffington Post bloggers seek release of the photos not for any First Amendment “right to know” protections but to be used as political ammunition to discredit the political right by seeking criminal prosecution of those responsible for the torture interrogations. While there motives are very understandable, the U.S. Constitution is not a football field where a contest of political ideologies should be waged.

As for military tribunals, we have long had a problem with the complete lack of constitutional protections available to those facing trial before such tribunals. President Obama, however, has greatly enhanced legal protections for terror suspects who will be brought before these tribunals. For example, evidence obtained through cruel and unusual interrogations techniques will not be admissible; greater restrictions will be imposed on the use of hearsay evidence; and a suspect will have greater leeway in choosing military counsel of his choice.

While these protections are not nearly as great as the evidentiary protections and constitutional rights enjoyed by a criminal defendant in the American legal system, unfortunately, certain kinds of terror suspects cannot realistically be tried in the nation’s legal system. The evidence against some of these terror suspects simply would not stand up against evidentiary rules of procedure or constitutional challenges in criminal courts. Some would argue that these individuals should be “turned loose” if a case cannot be made against them in the nation’s legal system where they would enjoy the full panoply of constitutional rights.

But this “turn ‘em loose” option is not only impractical but truly dangerous to the legitimate “national security interests” of this country. A dozen or more of the terror suspects currently being held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba are dangerous individuals who were allegedly directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, or were involved in other terror attacks on this country, or were involved in the planning of terror attacks on this country. To this day these individuals declare their allegiance to the destruction of the United States of America.

There should be no debate about whether these individuals should be held accountable for their terrorist activities—some of which cost the lives of thousands of innocent Americans. The rule of law and the very safety of the American people demand accountability for the terrorist attacks committed against them. The military tribunals as they are being resurrected by President Obama are the only realistic way to achieve such accountability.

Even if we subscribed to the “term ‘em loose” argument, there is no country that would take them—and even if another country would take them, it would only allow them to engage future terror attacks against Americans if they so wished.

President Obama has adopted the sound policy for dealing with the difficult “war on terror.” He has not only condemned torture as a way of extracting information from terror suspects, but has also said they will be accorded all the rights guaranteed to “prisoners of war” under the Geneva Convention. The president is chartering a course that will allow America to both treat terrorists in a humane manner, give them due process, and, if necessary punish them as swiftly and severely as their crimes require.

A nation has an indisputable right to protect itself from terrorism—and it does not have to forsake its fundamental constitutional values in doing so. We believe President Obama as our commander in chief has undertaken, and hopefully will continue, a course of action that will protect our legitimate “national security” interests while allowing America to restore its place as a moral beacon in the international community.

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

May 15, 2009

A DREW PETERSON DEFENSE

Filed under: Federal Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , — johntfloyd @ 11:53 am

Legislators and State Prosecutors Attempting to Deny Confrontation Clause Guarantees, Presumption of Innocence

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

Former Illinois police sergeant Drew Peterson has been married four times. Wife three, Kathleen Savio, died under mysterious circumstances in February 2004 just weeks before her divorce settlement with Peterson was to become final. Her dead body was found lying face down in an empty bathtub. Her hair was soaked in blood from a head wound. A Coroner’s Jury ruled her death an accident.

But Savio’s family members from the beginning believed that Peterson was responsible for her death. It had been an abusive, violent marriage from the beginning. Who was responsible for the spousal abuse in the marriage is still a subject of considerable debate. Kathleen tried to have a domestic violence complaint filed against Peterson but he was never charged. Kathleen, however, was charged twice in 2002 with battery and domestic battery, although she was acquitted each time. Kathleen reportedly told her family members that if something happened to her, Peterson would be responsible.

But despite the unusual circumstances surrounding Kathleen’s death, there was never any serious law enforcement effort to charge Peterson with any kind of crime associated with her death. Then in 2007 Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared under peculiar circumstances. Stacy’s disappearance immediately drew virtual non-stop cable news channel coverage. Nancy Grace could barely contain herself. She rode that news pony to death until the Caley Anthony case broke in 2008 giving her another media pony to ride into the ground.

Stacy Peterson’s disappearance also gave the Savio family an opportunity to resurrect her death from the grave. They pressed for an exhumation and a new autopsy. There were so many sound bites and news spins that the 24-hour cable news cycle could barely keep abreast of the dizzying pace of the coverage. There were times when the Peterson case forced a historical presidential campaign to take a backseat to “breaking news” about some “new detail” discovered in the case. Chris Matthews was not the only cable chatterer who felt a “tingle” running up his leg. (more…)

May 12, 2009

JUDGE SAMUEL KENT: SHOULD HE BE IMPEACHED?

Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:47 pm

SHOULD HE CONTINUE TO RECEIVE HIS PENSION?

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

These two questions have stirred considerable debate in both the legal community and general public in south Texas. Normally it is not a subject that would provoke a response by us. But the tenor of those demanding the impeachment of Judge Kent and those who have said he should not receive his pension have caused us some concern. Now that the federal judge has sentenced to 33 months in prison, we decided to weigh in on these two important questions.

The impeachment question is the most difficult one to address. Normally we would say that Judge Kent should be impeached because he was convicted of a serious felony. But the current congressional view of when a federal judge should be impeached gives us pause for concern.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee was head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under the George W. Bush administration before the former president rewarded Bybee with a life time federal judgeship appointment. Judge Bybee was the top Justice Department official who signed the legal memorandums authorizing the CIA to use torture techniques such as water boarding, wall-slamming and sleep deprivation during the interrogation of “terror suspects” in the wake of 9/11. Judge Bybee’s conduct at the time violated clearly established international law, existing federal law, and America’s longstanding policies for the treatment of captured “enemies of war.”

A significant number of organizations and media outlets have begun pushing for either the resignation or impeachment of Judge Bybee. For example, The New York Times in a recent editorial said that Judge Bybee’s role in the torture approval process “made it clear that [he] was not fit to make judgments about the law and the Constitution.” (more…)

May 9, 2009

A DEFENSE AGAINST TORTURE

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:44 am

The rule of law prevails over the demands of politics

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

In the wake of the Obama administration’s release of the “terror memos” and the political firestorm the release generated, the president has instructed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to review all the facts and circumstances surrounding the “torture” interrogations conducted by CIA and U.S. military personnel and make a determination of whether criminal charges should be filed either against those who approved the torture interrogations or those who conducted them, or both. Any decision Attorney General Holder makes will trigger an intense political backlash.

While the Democratic leadership favors either the formation of some kind of “truth commission” to investigate the torture issue much like the 9/11 commission or the criminal prosecution of all those involved, indications from the media are that President Obama is not personally or politically prepared to embrace either concept. One thing is fairly certain. The president should follow the rule of law. As a Harvard Law School graduate and former law professor, Obama has a deep appreciation for making sure that the rule of law prevails over the demands of politics. The president should neither direct nor attempt to control the course of the attorney general’s investigation and he will most certainly abide by the attorney general’s final decision.

Recent leaks indicate that criminal prosecution is not being considered but that the Justice Department may recommend that those involved in crafting the documents be disciplined by their state bar associations or banned from the practice of law.

However, should the attorney general elect to prosecute those involved in the “torture” process under the Bush administration, recent decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and historical U.S. Supreme Court precedents may offer a defense to those indicted on torture charges. The federal torture statute, Section 2340A of Title 18 of the United States Code, requires the Government to prove following elements: 1) the torture occurred outside the United States; 2) the person who carried out the torture is a United States national; and 3) the person who carried out the torture is in the United States, regardless of the nationality of either the torturer or the victim of the torture. These same elements apply to those who conspire to carry out torture. Anyone convicted under this statute faces a fine or a term of imprisonment up to 20 years, or both. 1/ (more…)

May 5, 2009

INADVERENT TRIAL ERROR COSTLY FOR CLIENT

Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: , , — johntfloyd @ 12:39 pm

Offer of Proof; Preserving Error for Appellate Review under Rule 103(a) (2)

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

In a recent article (“False Forensics: An Attorney’s Worst Nightmare.” 05-01-09), we reported on the increasing problems associated with the specialized field of forensic science. Prestigious organizations and scientists are calling now for a National Institute of Forensic Science with strict standards and enforcement mechanisms set up to insure that only truthful and valid forensic evidence is used to convict criminal defendants. It was faulty forensic science and lack of professional standards that prompted a former Houston Police Department crime lab technician to testify falsely in the rape and robbery trial of Gary Alvin Richard in 1987. Richard was recently released from prison after serving 22 years on a life sentence for violent crimes he did not commit. He case marked the fourth criminal defendant wrongfully convicted in Harris County because HPD crime lab technicians either lied or misrepresented forensic evidence test results to produce criminal convictions for unethical county prosecutors.

In our “False Forensics” blog, we concluded by saying: “Because of all the recent revelations and developments in the forensic science system, criminal defense attorneys now have an increased responsibility to challenge all forensic evidence offered at a criminal trial; to demand the methods used for gathering, processing, and preservation of that evidence; and to request for discovery of all notes by any analysts testing the evidence. Defense attorneys can no longer take this evidence as ‘scientifically’ infallible. Not only must defense lawyers thoroughly cross-examine these pro-prosecution witnesses about testing methodology, they must also identify all the analysts and support personnel involved in the testing process. Finally, defense attorneys must press for disclosure of testing mistakes made by the testifying ‘expert’ as well as all other mistakes made by others in the crime lab for which he works. This information goes to the heart of ‘reliability’ of the expert testimony, an issue open to cross-examination in Texas criminals.”

A decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”), Woodall v. State, issued on April 29, 2009 not only revised the manner in which expert testimony and evidence must be challenged but underscored the responsibility of defense counsel to properly object to this kind of testimony in order to preserve the issue for review. 1/ The Woodall case involved a DWI conviction obtained in Harrison County. The Sixth District Court of Appeals (“Sixth District”) had reversed his conviction on February 22, 2007. 2/ The Sixth District had seven other DWI cases pending before it at the time, all raising the same issue decided in the Woodall case. The Sixth District consolidated these seven cases and overturned the convictions in each on March 7, 2007. None of the seven cases were designated for publication. The CCA granted the state’s petition for discretionary review in all eight cases and consolidated them for one decision.

The issue upon which the Sixth District based its reversals involved the science associated with the Intoxilyzer 5000, a machine that tests samples of breath for alcohol content. The attorneys in all the cases, except for Woodall’s attorney, filed motions to cross-examine the State’s expert on the operation of the Intoxilyzer 5000 and each motion listed the following eight areas of concern about the internal workings of this breath testing machine: (more…)

May 2, 2009

FALSE FORENSICS: AN ATTORNEY’S WORST NIGHTMARE, INJUSTICE TO US ALL

Filed under: Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:14 am

Gary Alvin Richard; Wrongly Convicted Man Released after 22 Years

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

They are called “experts.” Prosecutors parade them into court dressed in respectful suit ware and carry resumes packed with a laundry list of degrees. They then testify about the science of “forensic evidence” in ways that more often confuse rather than clarify the issues being tried in a criminal case. Worst yet, many of these “CSI” experts testify falsely, or in misleading fashion, about test results they either did not perform correctly or whose results they manufactured to fit a given prosecutorial objective. Incompetent or unethical “forensic experts” are a criminal defense attorney’s worst nightmare.

The Houston Chronicle (April 25, 2009) carried a report about yet another Harris County case where an potentially innocent person spent 22 years in prison for a rape and robbery he did not commit because of false testimony and faulty “forensic evidence” from the now thoroughly discredited Houston Police Department’s (HPD) crime lab. The case involves Gary Alvin Richard who was released after 22 years in prison on his personal recognizance. Mr. Richard was convicted by a jury in connection with a 1987 attack on a nursing student who was abducted from a local Laundromat, robbed, and taken to an abandoned apartment where she was repeatedly raped.

During a seven-month period after the attack, the victim called the police twice to report that she had seen the man who assaulted her. The HPD did not respond to these calls. Seven months after the attack the victim called the police department a third time to report that she had just seen her attacker in a store. This time the police responded to the call and arrested Richard. Although Richard had a minor criminal history involving petty drug use, there was no violence in his record.

The victim’s mistaken identification of Richard was supported by forensic evidence developed by the HPD crime lab. New tests conducted on that same evidence on April 24 revealed that the crime lab analyst not only lied to the jury but withheld evidence that was exculpatory to Richard. (more…)

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