CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Now what do WE Do with It

By Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The “election” is over. Former Illinois Senator Barack Obama is now President-elect Obama. While it was a tremendous victory for the “Audacity of Hope” movement, it was an even greater victory for those who believe that social justice, racial tolerance, political unity, and strong presidential leadership are needed for this nation to heal its daunting economic woes and restore its proper role as moral leader in the world community.

While 48 percent (and 57% of the white voters) of the 131 million people who cast votes in the presidential election did not vote for President-elect Obama, the Illinois Senator told them in his victory acceptance speech that he heard their concerns and would be their president as much as he would be the president of those who voted for him. The nation desperately needs that kind of inclusive leadership.

Yes we can. This nation must find the political will and moral courage to thoroughly reject political partisanship, to find ways to protect the retirement savings of the elderly, to stymie the ruthless pace of home foreclosures, to make the power brokers on Wall Street as accountable as the small business owners on Main Street, and to make sure that every citizen in this country has a reasonable opportunity to secure health care coverage.

Yes we can. The American people have spoken, both loudly and clearly. They believe that Barack Obama is the person who can achieve these lofty but attainable goals. All Americans now have a fundamental civic responsibility to support the President-elect as he undertakes the awesome task of making our individual lives better, safer and more productive. Indeed Barack Obama now has the opportunity to be the Roosevelt of the 21st century just as Roosevelt was the Lincoln of the 20th century and Lincoln the Washington of the 19th century – and we believe he has the incredible gift of intelligence, courage and fortitude to not only seize but fulfill this opportunity. (more…)

Fifth Circuit Orders Acquittal in 1964 Mississippi Murder Case, Cold Case Initiative Fails, Statute of Limitation Prevails

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

Several years ago the Federal Bureau of Investigation created a Cold Case Initiative designed to bring to justice persons who committed horrific racially motivated crimes during the 1950s and 1960s civil rights era. One of those cases involved James Ford Seale, a former Mississippi deputy sheriff, who was convicted in June 2007 of kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the disappearances of Charles Eddie Moore and Henry Hezekiah Dee.

The two 19 year old African American men were hitchhiking in rural Franklin County, Mississippi in 1964 when Seale and fellow Klansmen allegedly picked them up, drove them into the Homochito National Forest in Franklin County, brutally interrogated and beat them, bound them with duct tape, tied a car engine block and railroad rail to their bodies, and while they were still alive and presumably pleading for their lives, threw them into the Old Mississippi River. The bodies of the two men were accidentally found two months later during a search for three missing civil rights workers in another infamous civil rights murder case that would become known as the “Mississippi Burning” case.

Seal and another man named Charles Edwards were arrested for the murders of Moore and Dee in 1964 but were immediately released on bond and were never tried. After the FBI turned the case over to local authorities, a justice of the peace dismissed the charges saying witnesses refused to testify against Seale and Edwards.

Law enforcement interest in the case was revived when Charles Moore’s brother, Thomas, discovered that Seale was still alive during a visit to Franklin County in 2007 as part of a documentary being produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about the civil rights slayings. Thomas Moore gave the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi the FBI files on the case which he had obtained from a Mississippi reporter. That prompted Assistant U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton to assist in the creation of a task force that re-opened the four decade old murder cases. The FBI-led task force generated enough evidence to produce an indictment against Seale. The FBI hailed the indictment as a prime example of its efforts to close cold cases from the civil rights era. (more…)

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…)

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…)

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

The grand jury is a powerful weapon in the hands of state and federal prosecutors. An old legal adage says that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if it the “target” of a criminal investigation.

Since state and local law enforcement authorities stormed Yearning for Zion Ranch owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, Texas, last April and unlawfully seized more than 450 children from their parents, the leaders and members of the church have been “targets” for grand jury indictment.

The grand jury hammer finally fell on July 22, 2008 on five members of what the Houston Chronicle called “a West Texas polygamist sect” who were indicted on sexual assault of a child charges and a sixth member for failing to report child abuse. The “polygamist sect” designation in the mainstream media, fueled by the arrest and conviction last year of FLDS leader Warren Jeffs in Nevada on two counts of being an accomplice to rape, has lent unwarranted credence to the efforts of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to indict and prosecute adult FLDS male members for what has been described as imposing “forced spiritual marriage” on underage FLDS girls.

“There will be an aggressive effort to apprehend them,” Abbott was quoted by the Chronicle as saying shortly after the grand jury indictments were announced.

The only named person indicted was Warren Jeffs because, as Abbott said, he is already in custody. The Attorney General said the names of the other indicted five FLDS members would not be released until they were arrested. The only information released was that one of the five was charged with bigamy while another was charged with a misdemeanor offense of failure to report child abuse. (more…)