Federal Defense Attorney « CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

February 26, 2009

BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK FOR JUDGES IN SOUTH TEXAS

Filed under: Federal Defense Attorney — Tags: death penalty, death row, execution, judge misconduct, lethal injections, sex crime, sexual abuse, sexual advances, sexual impropriety — johntfloyd @ 3:06 am

Judges Reap What They Sowed

By Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

There may be no Hero to the rescue in this dark drama hanging over the state and federal judiciaries in South Texas. The clouds in the horizon are as ominous as those that preceded Hurricane Ike last September. A sitting federal judge, the Honorable Samuel Kent who formerly oversaw maritime law cases for the past seventeen years in Galveston, was facing trial in a Houston federal district court on federal sex crime charges. The local media was reporting that attorneys who regularly practiced before Judge Kent were following the case with utter amazement and, we suspect, a near morbid fascination.

According to media reports, Judge Kent dominated proceedings before him with a harsh gavel and was known for what the Houston Chronicle called “biting written opinions.” Life indeed has a peculiar knack for turning things topsy-turvy. So it was with Judge Kent who found himself facing trial on five sexual abuse charges involving two former employees and one charge of lying to a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judicial commission assigned to investigate the sexual abuse allegations.

Represented by the preeminent Houston criminal defense attorney Dick DeGuerin, Judge Kent had been vociferous in his protestations of innocence during pre-trial court proceedings. Through a number of pre-trial pleadings, DeGuerin indicated a series of seemingly conflicting defenses: 1) the employees consented, 2) the judge suffers from erectile dysfunction, and 3) the judge is so consumed by such a powerful ego that he may not have been able to discern if the employees actually consented to alleged sexual advances he made towards them.

A recent Chronicle article about the Kent case quoted Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh expert on federal judicial discipline: “This is unprecedented,” Hellman said, pointing out that a few other federal judges have faced criminal trials involving “money and corruption” issues but none for sex offenses. (more…)

Comments (2)

November 19, 2008

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Filed under: Federal Defense Attorney — Tags: gun control, handguns, right to Bear Arms, Second Amendment, self-defense — johntfloyd @ 4:43 am

Supreme Court Discusses “Pre-Existing Right” to Keep and Bear Arms

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

There have been several recent national news reports concerning the dramatic increase in the sale of firearms, particularly in Texas, since the election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. The day after Obama was elected, the Cheaper than Dirt gun store in Fort Worth, Texas sold $101,000 worth of merchandise. Guns stores throughout Virginia have reported that sales have increased by 50 percent since Election Day. The FBI reported that by October 26, 2008 there were 62,000 more background checks for gun purchases than in October 2007 – a 25% increase.

There is an unbridled fear among gun advocates that President-elect Obama has some “secret” plan to disarm America. This fear exists despite a ruling by the United States Supreme Court on June 26, 2008 upholding a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 103 (D.C. Cir. 2007), that struck down a longstanding ban on the possession of handguns in the District of Columbia. See: District of Columbia b. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008).

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The language of this amendment has been the subject of constitutional interpretation since its adoption on September 17, 1787. Over the last three decades the meaning of the Amendment has been one of the most hotly debated social and political issue in America. Two basic interpretations have evolved from this debate – both of which were put squarely before the Supreme Court in Heller.

Gun control proponents argue that the Second Amendment protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection of with militia service. (more…)

Comments (0)