CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

October 30, 2009

TEXAS ATTORNEY DISCREDITS SPIRIT OF LEGAL PROFESSION

Filed under: Homicide Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 11:09 pm

Flagrant Exhibit of Unprofessionalism, Disloyalty to Executed Client Adds to Nationwide Scrutiny of Willingham Execution

By Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

We’re not in the habit of criticizing fellow criminal defense attorneys, but, and unfortunately, we feel compelled to discuss the antics of Mr. David Martin, of Corsicana, Texas, recently displayed on nationwide television. Martin was Cameron Todd Willingham’s defense attorney during Willingham’s August 1992 capital murder trial. Willingham had been charged with intentionally setting fire to his Corsicana, Texas house in December 1991 which killed his three small children. Martin was appointed to defend Willingham who maintained from the outset that he was innocent of starting the fire that killed the three children.

The evidence presented at Willingham’s is listed below:

1. State arson experts testified to the effect that Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floors throughout his house and intentionally set it ablaze which resulted in the death of his three children (twin girls aged 1 and a third daughter aged 2) by acute carbon monoxide due to smoke inhalation.
2. An expert witness specifically testified the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, and that this can only occur when an accelerant has been purposely used.
3. Neighbors testified that Willingham “crouched down” in the front yard as the house began to smolder and refused to heed the neighbors’ pleas for him to make some effort to recuse the children.
4. Neighbors also testified that when the fire “blew out” windows in the house, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire so that it would not be damaged.
5. A firefighter at the scene testified that Willingham was upset because his dart board had been burned in the fire.
6. Another neighbor testified that the morning after the fire, Christmas Eve, Willingham and his wife pored through the fire debris while laughing and playing loud music.
7. Witnesses testified that Willingham did not display any grief for the loss of his children either at the fire scene or at the hospital later that night.
8. A “jailhouse snitch” testified that Willingham told him that he killed his children to cover-up prior abuse of them. 1/

Absent the testimony of the state’s fire experts, there was no real evidence that Willingham committed the crime. It was the state’s expert arson testimony that convicted Willingham of capital murder and resulted in the death penalty being imposed.

As Willingham’s state and federal appeal remedies drew to a close in November 2003, his family contacted a prominent, Cambridge-educated fire scientist from Austin, Texas named Gerald Hurst. The family persuaded this expert to examine the state’s arson evidence to determine if it was reliable. Skeptical at the outset, Hurst nonetheless undertook the pro bono task of reviewing the Willingham evidence. He was astonished not only by the evidence relied upon by the state experts but the procedures they utilized to draw the conclusions they presented to the jury; namely, that the fire had been intentionally set and Willingham was the only person capable of setting it. (more…)

October 26, 2009

DISTRACTED DRIVING – A MENACE TO SOCIETY

Death Cause by Distracted Driving While on Cell Phone Leads to Conviction for Negligent Homicide

By Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair.

It was an emotional crime, to be sure. The father of the daughter convicted of the crime now no longer believes in the criminal justice system, and the convicted daughter still does not believe she committed a crime at all—even though the 25-year-old father of a child is dead because of the daughter’s behavior.

The daughter is 24-year-old Jeri Montgomery who was recently convicted in Harris County for the offense of criminally negligent homicide. Assistant District Attorney Brent Mayr prosecuted the case. The prosecutor convinced a jury that Montgomery committed the homicide against Chance Wilcox in March 2008 when she illegally changed lanes while trying to get on an interstate highway resulting in a fatal three car pileup. Mayr presented evidence, through Montgomery’s cell phone records, that the woman had just terminated a cell phone conversation when she realized she was about to miss the on-ramp to the interstate and abruptly changed lanes in front of Wilcox.

“She [Montgomery] made the decision to talk on her cell phone,” Mayr was quoted as saying in the Houston Chronicle. “That distracted her from knowing where she was, where other cars were around her, and, ultimately, she made the choice to make an extremely negligent decision and the jury found it was criminal negligent.”

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last month called “distracted driving” a “menace to society” which killed nearly 6,000 people last year and injured a half-million more. The two leading causes of “distracted driving” are talking on cell phones, as Montgomery was doing, and texting while driving. USA Today reported recently that some 38 states have either enacted legislation or are currently considering pending legislation that would ban these forms of distracted driving. (more…)

October 24, 2009

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – A SENSITIVE SUBJECT TO APPROACH

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Friends and Family Need to Get Involved to Stop the Cycle of Abuse, Save a Life

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

This past August Christiana “Tina” Guerra Lewis became another statistic; a victim of a social epidemic far more deadly than the HINI virus. The night before her death, according to the Houston Chronicle, Lewis asked her mother to go with her the next day to get a restraining order against R.P., a man with a lengthy criminal record with at least two dozen arrests including an assault on a family member and injuring a child.

Lewis did not live to see the next day.  She became one of the every three women murdered each day in this country by their spouses or intimate partners, according to a recent Chronicle op-ed article by Rebecca L. White, president and CEO of the Houston Area Women’s Center, and James L. Postl, former CEO of Pennzoil Quaker State. Police charged that R.P. stabbed Lewis numerous times in the neck in her trailer residence in Channelview.

R.P. has a long history of domestic violence. He was committed to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on at least four occasions, the last commitment being for an assault on a family member. He came from a family environment of domestic violence. In 2000 his mother was convicted of killing her live-in boyfriend by dropping a 40-lb cinder block on his head.

While the Lewis family told the Chronicle that Lewis was probably unaware of R.P’s extensive criminal record and history of domestic violence, she was aware of his propensity for violence. The Chronicle reported that four days before R.P killed her, he broke into Lewis’ residence, beat her up, raped her, and stole money from her. He warned her not to call the police, threatening to kill her family if she did. She didn’t. She even refused to go to the hospital for treatment, telling a sister: “For what? They’re not going to do anything.” (more…)

October 16, 2009

STOP AND FRISK

Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 10:18 pm

Increased Use of Stop and Frisk Leads to Increased Constitutional Abuses, Legitimizes Racial Profiling

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

Law enforcement officials claim “stop and frisk” is one of their most effective crime prevention practices. Civil libertarians, however, claim that “stop and frisk” is being used as another racial profiling tool against hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens each day across the country. The Associated Press recently released statistics showing that law enforcement stop and question more than one million people each year in the nation’s largest cities—a figure that reflects a sharp increase in the use of “stop and frisk” over the past few years. The AP figures revealed that most of the individuals stopped and frisked were black and Hispanic men, most of whom were innocent of any criminal wrongdoing.

The fact that the “stop and frisk” practice often targets racial minorities who have not violated any law does not deter New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly from being an ardent and vocal supporter of the practice. The Commissioner informed AP that his officers will stop as many as 600,000 individuals this year alone but will arrest only 10 percent of them.

“This is a proven law enforcement tactic to fight and deter crime, one that is authorized by criminal procedure,” he told AP.

But the New York figures are indeed troubling. AP reported that of the 531,159 people stopped by the city’s police department in 2008, 51 percent were black, 32 percent were Hispanic, and 11 percent were white. Even more troubling is the fact that New York City police stopped five times as many people in 2008 than they did in 2002.

David Harris is a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. As an expert on stop and frisk, Harris has become increasingly troubled by the practice because it yields very few weapons, drugs or evidence of any crime. (more…)

October 14, 2009

WHO ARE THE REAL HOME GROWN TERRORISTS?

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:24 pm

Right-Wing Patriot Groups, White Supremest, Neo-Nazis Pose Growing Threat

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The mainstream media over the past two weeks has been saturated with an endless stream of stories about Najibullah Zazi, a suspected Afganhani terrorist reportedly involved in a plot of bomb New York City’s mass transit system; Michael Fenton, an American converted to Islam who allegedly planted and attempted to trigger a fake vehicle bomb in front of a Springfield, Illinois federal court building with the help of undercover FBI operatives; and Hosam Maher Smadi, a Jordanian who also allegedly planted and attempted to trigger a fake vehicle bomb at a Dallas skyscraper with the help of undercover FBI operatives. All three allegedly terrorist plots were exposed by the FBI this past September following the arrests of these individuals.

These three individuals—all of whom were linked to what some in the media refer to as “radical Islam”—have become the most recent faces of the term “home grown terrorism” in the United States. It has become almost second nature for Americans to associate virtually every threat of terrorism with the religion of Islam. But do radical jihadists pose the greatest threat of terrorism in this country?

James G. Cummings is not a household name in America. He is certainly not as well known as Zazi, Fenton or Smadi. He was shot to death by his wife on December 9, 2008. Two months later an FBI field intelligence report from the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center was posted online by WikiLeaks which revealed that “radioactive materials” had been removed from Cummings’ Belfast, Maine home following his shooting death.

“On 9 December 2008, radiological dispersal device components and literature, and radioactive materials, were discovered at the Maine residence of an identified deceased [person] James Cummings,” WikiLeaks quoted the intelligence report as saying.

The report listed the following “dirty bomb” making materials found at Cummings’ residence: four 1-gallon containers of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide, uranium, thorium, lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium, boron, black iron oxide, and magnesium. In addition to these materials, the report stated that literature about how to construct a “dirty bomb” and other information about radioactive materials (cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60) were found at the residence. (more…)

October 7, 2009

ROGUE JUROR DID NOT PREVENT ACQUITTAL

Another Not Guilty: Client Falsely Accused of Indecency with Child Acquitted After Trial by Jury

By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd

Every prospective juror summoned to court for jury duty in a criminal case is questioned by counsel for the State and defendant as to his/her willingness to follow the law as given by the judge at the conclusion of the trial. A prospective juror who cannot, for whatever reason, state unequivocally that he/she will follow the law is excused for cause. Thus, a juror accepted by both the defense and the State for jury service has a solemn duty bound by a sworn oath to follow the law.

Myself, and Co-counsel Christopher Carlson, recently faced the dilemma of a recalcitrant juror who decided several hours into jury deliberations that she no longer wanted to participate in the proceedings. We were trying a particularly difficult indecency with a child case based on the allegation by a thirteen year old girl who charged that our client had inappropriately touched her during a recreational outing. The teenager had been sent to stay at our client’s residence while her mother recuperated from a serious illness. After her father picked her up at the residence, and as they drove home, the teenager reportedly told her father that our client had touched her inappropriately during her weekend stay at his residence. The father conveyed this information to his wife and together they contacted the police.

This case from the very beginning was a classic “he said, she said” case. It did not matter to law enforcement that our client was a law-abiding citizen with impeccable community credentials, who was known to be a decent, caring family man.

Unfortunately, Texas law is quite clear that the testimony of a child alone in a sex case is sufficient to support a criminal conviction. 1/ In fact, the statement the 13-year-old made to law enforcement, standing alone, was sufficient legal evidence to support a criminal conviction against our client. 2/ The State need not proffer medical evidence, forensic evidence, or corroborating testimony to support the victim’s testimony. “She said” evidence is all that is needed to not only bring about a criminal indictment but a conviction as well. (more…)

October 5, 2009

TEXAS GOV. RICK PERRY IMPEDES INQUIRY ABOUT WHETHER TEXAS EXECUTED AN INNOCENT MAN

Filed under: Death Penalty Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 11:46 am

Governor’s abrupt Dismissal of Chairman, Two Members of Texas Forensic Science Commission on Eve of Hearing Smacks of Political Cover-up

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

It is one thing for a governor to have possibly presided over the execution of an innocent man but quite another for that governor to effectively shut down an official investigation into whether the forensic evidence used convict the man was reliable.

That’s precisely what Texas Gov. Rick Perry did on September 30, 2009 when he abruptly replaced three members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission two days before the commission was scheduled to hear testimony from a renowned forensic expert who has cast serious doubts on the forensic evidence that sent Cameron Todd Willingham to his death on February 17, 2004 under Perry’s watch.

The governor has denied any ulterior personal or political motives for the firing of commission chairman Sam Bassett, an Austin attorney, and two other commission members. Bassett was instrumental earlier this year in securing the services the highly touted Maryland fire scientist and expert named Craig Beyler. The commission charged Beyler with the very specific task of determining whether the forensic evidence used to convict Willingham was reliable and satisfied nationally recognized scientific standards for the use of such evidence in arson cases. Beyler was not charged with the task of making a determination of whether or not Willingham was actually innocent.

“He [Beyler] appears to be one of the pre-eminent people in the fire and arson investigation field,” Bassett was quoted as saying in a January 27, 2009 Chicago Tribune article. (more…)

October 2, 2009

THE JUNK SCIENCE OF DOG SCENT LINEUPS

Popular Law Enforcement Dog Handler Discredited After False Results, Exaggerated Claims of Accuracy Exposed

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

We have blogged (False Forensics: An Attorney’s Worst Nightmare, May 1, 2009) in the past about the dangers of “false forensic” evidence being used in courtrooms to convict innocent people. The New York-based Innocence Project reported in 2007 that 65% of the nation’s first 200 DNA exonerations in this country involved fraudulent, unreliable or limited forensic science. Wrongful convictions based on false forensics—or what is commonly referred to as “junk science”—in the State of Texas occur with the same or at a greater frequency.

And what is “junk science?”

In an September 21, 2009 special report titled “Dog Scent Lineups: A Junk Science Injustice,” the Texas Innocence Project (TIP) provided the following illustrative definition: “Even before the television show ‘CSI’ became popular, juries and judges have tended to believe what ‘scientific experts’ say in criminal cases—especially if these ‘experts’ are police officers or prosecution witnesses. One study found that ‘about one quarter of jurors who were presented with scientific evidence believed that had such evidence been absent, they would have changed their verdicts—from guilty to not guilty.’ In the hands of a skilled prosecutor, scientific-sounding testimony from any source, no matter how fraudulent, can be played to great dramatic effect and win convictions.

“Prosecutors have taken full advantage of the gullibility of jurors and the willingness of courts to allow the use of these techniques. In case after case, prosecutors have used phony ‘experts’ with little or no training or education, false results from shoddy labs and dubious ‘theories’ with no basis in fact to get convictions. Taken together, these abusive practices have come to be known as the use of ‘junk science.’ The use of this ‘evidence’ is not limited to the courtroom: law enforcement agencies have come more and more to rely on it in making arrests and getting indictments.”

There is no greater “junk science” than “dog scent lineups” and the phoniest “expert” involved in this particular junk science is a Fort Bend County deputy sheriff named Keith Pikett. A native of New York, Pikett served six years in the Navy after he graduated from high school before taking a job at a ship yard in the early 1970s in Mobile, Alabama, according to TIP. He then graduated from the University of South Alabama with a chemistry degree and in 1984 received a master’s degree in “Sport Science” at an Alabama institution called United States Sports Academy. (more…)

Older Posts »

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