Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair
Governor’s Sacking of Commission’s Head Stalls Review of Junk Science Convictions
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
The Texas Legislature created the Forensic Science Commission (“FSC”) in 2005 to investigate what the Texas Monthly called “scientific negligence and misconduct.” The legislature acted following the February 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham and the October 2004 decision by Pecos County District Attorney Ori White to free Ernest Willis from capital murder charges. Willingham and Willis had both been convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for murders they allegedly committed by setting fires to dwellings in which five people were killed—two women in Willis’ case and Willingham’s three young daughters. The forensic arson evidence used to convict both men was virtually identical. In fact, as Michael Hall wrote recently in Texas Monthly, these two condemned men had a lot in common:
“They were both country boys—Willis from New Mexico, Willingham from Oklahoma—who liked hunting, drinking, and carousing. Both were unemployed and living in small Texas towns when they were accused of setting fires that killed people (in Willingham’ case, his three small daughters in 1991). Both were convicted of capital murder on the basis of testimony of investigators who believed they had found evidence of arson. Both were sent to death row. Eventually both were vindicated by modern science, which determined that there was absolutely no evidence of arson in either case. The fires were almost certainly accidents.”
And both men were targeted as suspects by investigators because of their behavior immediately after the fires. According to neighbors who witnessed the Willingham fire, the father “crouched down” in his front yard and refused to make any effort to recuse his children despite pleas by the neighbors that he do so. Similarly, witnesses said Willis, who was high on pain killers and beer, looked distant as he impassively smoked cigarettes while watching the fire burn that killed the two women. This apparent lack of “proper” emotion and empathy for the people being burned alive was sufficient reason for investigators to manipulate the forensic evidence to change the fires from accidents into intentional acts of murder.
By 2003, time was running out for Willingham. In November of that year the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his final appeal. Desperate, the condemned man’s brother reached out to a highly respected Austin forensic arson expert named Gerald Hurst after reading an article about the Cambridge-educated chemist. The brother begged Hurst to examine the forensic evidence used to convict Willingham. The fire scientist agreed, and was astonished to discover the evidence used to convict Willingham almost certainly proved the fire had been an accident and not intentional arson/murder. Willingham’s court-appointed attorney notified Gov. Rick Perry about the Hurst findings three days before his client’s scheduled February 14 execution. He requested that the governor stay the execution of his client until the Hurst findings of innocence could be adequately developed. Gov. Perry did not respond to the stay request, so just 88 minutes before Willingham was actually executed the attorney faxed a copy of the Hurst report to the governor’s office. To this day it is not certain whether Gov. Perry even reviewed the Hurst report before allowing the execution to proceed as scheduled. (more…)
Politics as Usual: Republicans Desperately Seek Outrage to be Relevant
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently appeared before a U.S. Senate committee hearing to explain his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and his four co-conspirators, in federal civilian court rather than let them be tried before a military commission under the 2009 Military Commissions Act. There were a number of sharp, biting exchanges between Holder and Republican senators, all of whom have joined ranks in a calculated political agenda to oppose the Obama administration not only on this decision but any decision it makes on any front.
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-SC, vigorously questioned Holder about Osama bin Laden should he be captured. Would the self-proclaimed jihadist be considered a criminal terrorist or an ‘unprivileged belligerent” (previously known as “enemy combatants” under the 2006 Military Commissions Act)? As a criminal terrorist, bin Laden, of course, would enjoy the same constitutional protections as any criminal defendant, including right to remain silent, right to counsel, and right not to be tortured. Sen. Graham’s line of questioning indicated he would be shocked and appalled were the world’s most wanted terrorist be given such constitutional protections upon capture.
Sen. Graham has a short memory. It was a Republican-led Congress in 1996 that enacted (and was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton in April of that year) the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This law was enacted primarily in response to the 1995 Oklahoma City and 1993 World Trade Center bombings. AEDPA was codified as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2332b. This statute defines the term “Federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that “is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” ADEPA designated the following list of already prohibited crimes as acts of “terrorism”:
- 18 U.S.C. § 32 – destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
- 13 U.S.C. § 37 – violence at international airports
- 18 U.S.C. § 81 – arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction (more…)
Enemy Combatant Cases in Federal Courts Chart Uncertain Path
By Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
On January 22, 2009, just days after assuming the presidency, Barak Obama announced that he would close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility where hundreds “suspected terrorists” have been held for years without trial under an official Bush-administration created designation “enemy combatant.” Civil libertarians and prominent constitutional scholars have long advocated the closure of the facility while political conservatives have fought hard in the trenches to keep the internationally-criticized torture facility open.
A liberal policy think tank called Center for American Progress, a staunch ally of the Obama administration, charged in a recently released report that the administration has made a series of blunders following the President’s January 22nd Gitmo closure announcement. The report, authored by Ken Gude, a scholar for the Center, says these blunders will delay Gitmo’s ultimate closure for months. The most significant blunders, the report charged, was the administration’s failure to have enough people in place to handle the difficult closure process and misleading Congress about its intentions.
The Obama administration assigned two task forces to deal with the Gitmo dilemma: one to examine the overall “detention policy” of suspected terrorists and the second to review the files of more than 200 detainees to determine whether they should be prosecuted in federal civilian courts or by military commissions. The most high-profile of these “enemy combatants” were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks who has been in custody since March 2003, and four of his co-conspirators—all of whom will now be tried in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York based on a recent decision by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
Just last month President Obama signed the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (officially titled the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act) which changes—but some would argue does not actually improve—the rules governing the military commissions created in 2006 to hear terrorism cases. In 2006 then-Sen. Obama, and 33 other U.S. senators, voted against the “military commission’s law,” calling it a “flawed document” that ran counter to American values. (more…)
Absolute Immunity from Civil Liability, Accountability for Prosecutors
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
The primary ethical and legal duty of a criminal prosecutor is to serve the interests of justice—not their personal interests of winning at any costs as is too often the case with a many prosecutors. This was made clear in October 2008 in the federal prosecution of then-Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) for high-profile corruption charges. The federal prosecutors in the case were determined to bring down one of the most powerful lawmakers in this country—at any costs. D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan lambasted those prosecutors at the time saying that in his 25 years on the bench he had “never seen mishandling and misconduct like what I have seen” in Sen. Stevens’ case. The federal judge was so incensed at the prosecutorial misconduct that he appointed an outside attorney named Henry Schuelke to investigate the Stevens prosecutors for possible “criminal contempt.” The matter was essentially resolved when current U.S. Attorney Eric Holder requested, and secured, a reversal of Sen. Stevens’ conviction from Judge Sullivan earlier this year.
But the legal and political fallout from the Stevens case lingers in the federal judiciary. Last month in a meeting with members of the federal Judiciary’s Criminal Rules Advisory Committee Assistant U.S. Attorney Larry Breuer informed the committee that while the Justice Department had implemented “new measures” to ensure that federal prosecutors fulfill their responsibility to disclose any potentially exculpatory information to the defense, the Department would stand firm against expanding the Brady disclosure requirements under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Why? Do they seek justice or hide it?
Writing in www.mainjustice.com, Joe Palazzolo said that Breuer presentation was a rebuttal to an earlier request by Judge Sullivan urging the committee to consider amending Rule 16 requiring federal prosecutors to “turn over all exculpatory information to defense lawyers in criminal cases.” Sullivan informed the committee that “such a rule would eliminate the need for the court to enter discovery orders that simply restate the law in this area, reduce discovery disputes, and help ensure the integrity and fairness of criminal proceedings.”
Former Harris County District Attorneys Johnny Holmes and Charles “Chuck” Rosenthal left a deplorable legacy of prosecutorial misconduct involving cases where prosecutors not only withheld clearly exculpatory information but fabricated evidence, including the knowing use of perjured testimony, to secure criminal conviction—even in death penalty cases. The administration of these two former district attorneys, which spanned nearly 30 years, was proud of their “win-at-any-costs” philosophy that ultimately morphed into unofficial policy. And things really have not improved much under current “reform” District Attorney Pat Lykos who took office earlier this year. One of her prosecutors was recently discovered hiding potentially exculpatory information in a sexual assault case. The alleged victim had initially identified her attacker as being “black” but he actually turned out to be white. This information was apparently deliberately withheld from the defense attorneys involved in the case. (more…)
Failure to Strike Prosecutor, Victim of Sex Crime, from Jury not Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant a right to an impartial trial. 1/ Selecting a jury of twelve men and women to hear a criminal case is perhaps the most critical stage in the trial process where a defense attorney must provide effective representation. He has a pool of prospective jurors representing a cross-section of the community from which to select the people who will hear the facts and fairly consider the case. This jury pool is a minefield of human experiences that range from concealed bias and prejudice to open fairness and impartiality. The task of the defense attorney is to navigate through the minefield without exploding a mine that will injure his client’s opportunity for an impartial trial.
The constitutional guarantee of an impartial trial, in all actuality, begins with voir dire—a French term meaning “to speak the truth.” Voir dire is a pre-jury selection phase of the trial during which the prosecution and defense are afforded an opportunity, under the strict supervision of the trial judge, to question prospective jurors to determine if they are qualified and suitable to serve on a jury. These questions are often initially influenced by the questionnaires prospective jurors are required to fill out before the voir dire gets underway.
Texas criminal procedure grants ten peremptory challenges—the right of either party to exclude a potential juror for any reason or no reason at all so long as the challenge is not use to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity—to both the prosecution and the defense in non-capital felony cases and capital cases in which the State does not seek the death penalty. If two or more defendants are jointly tried, each defendant and the prosecution are entitled to six peremptory challenges. 2/
A defense attorney must utilize these peremptory challenges in a judicious manner. They are generally exercised when the attorney detects, either through direct responses from the prospective juror to specific questions or from mere instinct honed by years of trial practice, that a prospective juror is biased in a very specific sense or harbors prejudices in a general sense against particular defendants. And a defense attorney in Texas does not have a lot of time to make these calls. Most judges impose very restrictive time frames for completing the voir dire examination—ranging from twenty minutes to an hour. It is critical, therefore, that an attorney be thoroughly prepared before he/she enters the jury selection arena. (more…)
Subscribe
