<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION &#187; Federal Crimes Lawyer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/category/federal-crimes-lawyer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog</link>
	<description>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:44:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>FEDERAL DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2012/01/12/federal-discovery-and-inspection-procedures/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2012/01/12/federal-discovery-and-inspection-procedures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:48:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery obligations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witness bias]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=703</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tunnel Vision Interferes with Duty to Comply with Discovery Obligations

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Most litigation in federal criminal cases regarding discovery of evidence, or lack thereof, is based on claims of violations of due process protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.  These constitutional protections create duties upon the government to disclose to the defendant certain types of evidence that is favorable to the accused because it either questions the defendant’s guilt, exculpatory evidence, or is useful in impeaching a government witness.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2012/01/12/federal-discovery-and-inspection-procedures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THE IMPACT OF PINHOLSTER ON NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AND BRADY VIOLATIONS</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/12/17/the-impact-of-pinholster-on-newly-discovered-evidence-and-brady-violations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/12/17/the-impact-of-pinholster-on-newly-discovered-evidence-and-brady-violations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:21:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Houston Criminal Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death sentence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Murder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecutorial misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robbery]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=695</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In January 1982, Scott Lynn Pinholster, a California native, was an Aryan Brotherhood-type who, along with two like-minded cohorts, went to the home of a local drug dealer named Michael Kumar. The drug dealer was not at home when the Neo-Nazi trio arrived so they began to ransack the residence in search of drugs and money. At this inopportune time, two of Kumar’s friends, Thomas Johnson and Robert Beckett, arrived at the drug dealer’s home where they confronted the burglars. That confrontation led to Pinholster and his cohorts brutally beating and repeatedly stabbing Johnson and Beckett until they were dead.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/12/17/the-impact-of-pinholster-on-newly-discovered-evidence-and-brady-violations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF FEDERAL SENTENCING?</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/08/31/what-is-the-purpose-of-federal-sentencing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/08/31/what-is-the-purpose-of-federal-sentencing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appropriate punishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[correctional treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL SENTENCING]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=646</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tapia v. U.S.: Need for Rehabilitation not Proper Factor in Determining Sentence

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The concept of penal rehabilitation began at the end of the 19th century in this country. Historically criminal sentences in America have been imposed for four reasons: deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Although rehabilitation has been a subject of controversy as a reason for punishment, the State of Texas adopted it as a reason to punish through criminal sentencing. The U.S. Congress, however, has long dispensed with rehabilitation as a basis for criminal sentencing in federal courts. This was evidenced by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tapia v. United States, which declared that a federal district court judge abused his discretion by lengthening a defendant’s sentence in order to fulfill rehabilitation objectives.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/08/31/what-is-the-purpose-of-federal-sentencing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Police Interrogations of Children</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/27/police-interrogations-of-children/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/27/police-interrogations-of-children/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[break-ins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interrogations of children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[juvenile detention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miranda]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Age is Proper Factor in Miranda Custody Analysis

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

One thing you can depend upon, any time the U.S. Supreme is presented with an issue that involves extending or protecting the interests of a criminal “suspect,” Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito will be opposed to it. And at first impression, most people will say, “heck, there’s nothing wrong with that—criminals shouldn’t have rights or interests.” But what if that criminal suspect was their 13-year-old son? Would they be so inclined to accept that the police could question and secure a confession from him without their being present? Didn’t think so!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/27/police-interrogations-of-children/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>JOINT REPRESENTATION: THE PITFALLS OF UNCHECKED CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/23/joint-representation-the-pitfalls-of-unchecked-conflicts-of-interests/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/23/joint-representation-the-pitfalls-of-unchecked-conflicts-of-interests/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multiple representations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white collar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=618</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indentifying Conflicts when Representing Businesses and their Employees

By: White Collar Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Issues surrounding joint representation by attorneys in criminal cases are fairly straightforward. The U.S. Supreme Court three decades ago, in Cuyler v. Sullivan, held that a defendant in a criminal case may demonstrate a denial of effective representation of counsel, guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment, by satisfying a dual criteria: 1) defense counsel was actively representing conflicting interests, and 2) the conflict(s) had an adverse impact on counsel’s performance while representing the defendant.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/23/joint-representation-the-pitfalls-of-unchecked-conflicts-of-interests/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SUPREME COURT BLESSES LAW ENFORCEMENT MISCONDUCT</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/05/supreme-court-blesses-law-enforcement-misconduct/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/05/supreme-court-blesses-law-enforcement-misconduct/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:55:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA exonerations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perjured testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[planted evidence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lack of Criminal and Civil Accountability Points to Need for Criminal Justice Reform Commissions

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

This session of the U.S. Supreme Court should be noted for its zealous protection of official misconduct by prosecutors and law enforcement officials. In two decisions, Connick v. Thompson and Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, the nation’s highest court extended a constitutional license to prosecutors and police to violate the law. We have detailed the background facts of both these cases in previous posts (here and here). In the Thompson case, the Court ruled that several New Orleans assistant district attorneys, who were responsible for railroading an innocent man to Louisiana’s death row for 14 years, and the City of New Orleans were not liable for damages under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. In the al-Kidd case, former U.S. Attorney John Ashcroft was insulated from civil damages under the same statute for permitting al-Kidd and other terrorists suspects to be held indefinitely, without any meaningful evidence of either personal wrongdoing or knowledge about wrongdoing, under the federal material witness statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3144, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/05/supreme-court-blesses-law-enforcement-misconduct/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ROGUE PROSECUTORS GET LICENSE TO LIE AND CHEAT</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/04/01/rogue-prosecutors-get-license-to-lie-and-cheat/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/04/01/rogue-prosecutors-get-license-to-lie-and-cheat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:59:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[armed robbery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil rights lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death row]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Murder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecutorial misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rogue prosecutors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=570</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Connick v. Thompson: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Prosecutors to Hide Evidence Favorable to the Accused without Consequence

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

John Thompson spent over 18 years in a Louisiana prison, 14 isolated on death role, after a prosecution described as fundamentally unfair by prosecutorial design.  
In Thompson’s struggle for justice, prosecutors intentionally withheld favorable evidence, which indicated he was innocent, prior to trial, during trial and throughout the years he spent in prison.  The Supreme Court has now held this was not a civil rights violation.   ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/04/01/rogue-prosecutors-get-license-to-lie-and-cheat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THE SUPREME COURT BACK PEDALS ON THE SIXTH AMENDMENT</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/04/the-supreme-court-back-pedals-on-the-sixth-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/04/the-supreme-court-back-pedals-on-the-sixth-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2011 00:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confrontation Clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hearsay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hollow constitutional guarantee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miranda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nontestimonial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sixth amedment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=555</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Constitutional Right to Confront Witnesses Watered Down: Statements Describing Shooter Not Testimonial, Admissible Without Confrontation and Cross Examination

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

What a strange Supreme Court we have! You know it’s strange when Justice Sonia Sotomayer authors a lead opinion, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer and Alito, which curtails longstanding constitutional jurisprudence regarding the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause over the dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia.  However, this was exactly the case in the Court’s recent opinion in Michigan v. Bryant, in which the Court held that statements made to police identifying and describing a “shooter” were not testimonial and thus were admissible in trial, even though the witness was dead and could not testify.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/04/the-supreme-court-back-pedals-on-the-sixth-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THE LAW ON GUNS AND FELONS</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/02/the-law-on-guns-and-felons/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/02/the-law-on-guns-and-felons/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 23:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conceal carry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firearms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun possession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guns]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=553</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Texas Legislature Pushing to Allow Concealed Guns on College Campuses, Penalties for Felon in Possession Increase

By Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The Texas Legislature appears poised to join Utah in enacting legislation that would allow guns on college campuses (an issue rejected in 23 other states).  The legislation would allow college students and professors, who have concealed handgun permits, to pack “heat” on public university property throughout the State of Texas.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/02/the-law-on-guns-and-felons/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THE COMPUTER IS A CRIME MACHINE</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/20/the-computer-is-a-crime-machine/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/20/the-computer-is-a-crime-machine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 06:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterfeiting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cybercrimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[identity thieves]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industrial spying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property crimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piracy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Computer Crimes and Prosecutions on the Rise: Cyber Espionage, Theft of Corporate Trade Secrets and Identity Fraud Continue to Increase

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Every human invention designed to benefit mankind has always been corrupted for illegal and immoral purposes. It’s a flaw inherent in the human soul. So it is with the computer—one of man’s most significant inventions and which someday may well be the cause of man’s downfall, at least according to some prophets of doom. While the computer is essentially a wonderful device that services billions of legitimate purposes, it is also an attractive vehicle for criminal pursuits.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/20/the-computer-is-a-crime-machine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

