CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

February 24, 2010

A TIP OF THE HAT FOR A JOB WELL DONE

Court Recommends New Trial for Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for Capital Murder After Finding State’s Expert Testimony Incompetent

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

We have blogged rather extensively about the “convict at any costs” agenda which has ruled the Harris County District Attorney’s Office for the past three decades. “Convict at any costs” means the frequent use of fabricated forensic evidence, knowingly allowing perjured testimony into a criminal trial, withholding exculpatory evidence from defendants (particularly those known to be innocent), and injecting race in its death penalty decision-making.

These experiences with the Harris County District Attorney’s Office do not give rise to much hope that a District Attorney could be an example of courage. But that is precisely what we found in the recent actions of former Montgomery County District Attorney Michael McDougal, who lost his bid for re-election to Brett Ligon. Nearly 12 years ago McDougal’s office prosecuted Neil Hampton Robbins for capital murder in connection with the death of Robbins’ former girlfriend’s 17-month-old daughter, Tristen Rivet. Robbins was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the toddler’s death.

Robbins’ conviction was based in large part of the testimony then Harris County Medical Examiner, Dr. Patricia Moore. We have also blogged in the past about Dr. Moore’s history of providing false or discredited testimony in child death cases. http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/september09/17.htm On January 22, 2010, the proverbial chickens came home to roost in the Neil Robbins case. Montgomery County District Court Judge K. Michael Mayes ruled that Dr. Moore had given inept testimony during Robbins’ May 1998 murder trial. Judge Mayes’ concluded the former medical examiner was too incompetent “to offer objective and pathologically sound opinions on the cause and manner of [the] death [of Tristen Rivet].”

In May of 2007 Dr. Moore tried to clean up the testimony she had given in the Robbins case by reviewing her findings that Tristen Rivet’s death was a homicide. Based on unidentified information she said she had not reviewed in her original examination of Rivet’s body (after which she found the toddler’s death was a homicide caused by a compressed skull), Dr. Moore changed her “cause of death” finding from homicide to “undetermined.”

(more…)

November 29, 2009

TEXAS FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION LACKS CREDIBILITY

Filed under: Homicide Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 5:39 pm

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…)

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…)

August 23, 2009

2009 CAIR AWARD: ASSISTING THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY

Pro Bono Legal Representation in Voluntary Interviews, Profiling by FBI

By: John Floyd, Houston Criminal Defense Attorney

On August 15th, 2009, I received an award in recognition of my pro bono work for the Muslim community in Houston. CAIR-TX, Houston Chapter, presented the award upon which was inscribed: “In Recognition of: His personal dedication and committed assistance in providing protection to our community from undue harassment from federal agencies.” The award came after years, and hundreds of hours of pro bono work, representing individuals targeted under the Department of Justice’s voluntary interview program. In almost every case, these individuals were targeted for interview simply because of their religious beliefs, places of worship or country of origin and were not suspected of any criminal activity whatsoever. The voluntary interview program is simply an intelligence gathering effort designed to collect data about the Muslim community in hopes of preventing future acts of terrorism.

Sometime in 2004, I was approached by a fellow lawyer who had been offering his services pro bono to represent individuals targeted for “voluntary” interviews by the FBI and other agencies comprising regional Joint Terrorism Task Forces. He needed some criminal expertise and hoped I could help in what a growing problem in the Muslim community. As I soon realized, the term “voluntary” was somewhat misleading. Voluntary meant you were not under arrest, were probably not the target of a criminal investigation, and could refuse the interview. But, in practical and emotional terms, the process was hardly voluntary.

The agents would approach unsuspecting people at their homes and request entry to ask a few questions. As most legally untrained and intimidated people would do, the agents were allowed in and would begin to ask questions. If the interviewee began to feel uneasy, scared or insulted by the questions and refused to answer, or was intelligent and asked for a lawyer, the agents would persist, normally invoking the old reliable police tactics of “if you don’t have anything to hide or if you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t need a lawyer and should talk with us.” If the person had resolve and refuse to talk, agents would threaten to begin interviewing neighbors, friends, family and even employers, knowing these threats would normally coerce compliance.

The interviewing agents were sometimes aggressive, insulting and asked questions contrary to the letter and spirit of the principles set out in our great Constitution. It was a new McCarthyism, but this time Big Brother was focused on the Muslim community and, after 911, nobody seemed to care. The common response to these abuses, and other Bush era tactics of terror mongering and the “you’re either with us or against us” propaganda, was fear inspired complicity. (more…)

July 14, 2009

THE DIFFICULTIES FACED IN INSANITY CASES

Lawyer Ineffective for Failure to Investigate, Request Medical Records Indicating Possible Insanity; (Be careful what you ask for…)

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Spencer Ojeifo Imoudu was not a normal individual. In August 2005 the Bexar County resident stole a vehicle parked outside a pawn shop. The vehicle belonged to the owner of the pawn shop. He, and another witness, saw Imoudu get in the vehicle and drive off. The two men raced to the witness’s truck and sped away after Imoudu. During the high speed chase, Imoudu turned into oncoming traffic, crashing head on into an oncoming vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle was killed. Imoudu was arrested and charged with felony murder and manslaughter. He eventually pled guilty to the two charges in exchange for a 17-year sentence with an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon. 1/

Appellant was initially represented by a court-appointed attorney. This changed after Imoudu’s father visited him in the county jail where the father found his son not acting normally. The father spoke to a jail social worker who informed him that she had noticed his son’s mental health deteriorating. The social worker had attempted to contact Imoudu’s court-appointed attorney, but the attorney had not returned any of her calls. The social worker suggested that the father retain another attorney to represent his son. 2/

The father accepted the social worker’s suggestion. In March 2006 Imoudu’s father retained a new attorney and the court-appointed attorney was dismissed. The retained attorney visited Imoudu in jail and found him staring “into space” and striking “an odd pose with his fingers on his chin” and mumbling incoherently. The attorney’s co-counsel also met with Imoudu and left feeling there was “something wrong” with him. 3/

Quite naturally the new attorney filed for a competency examination after these two separate attorney/client meetings. The trial court appointed a psychiatrist to evaluate Imoudu and followed up by conducting a competency hearing. The court-appointed expert testified at the hearing that he believed Imoudu was competent to stand trial. Imoudu, who was taking anti-psychotic medication at the time, also testified at the hearing. After hearing his client testify, Imoudu’s attorney conceded that his client was competent to stand trial. A month later Imoudu at his attorney’s suggestion accepted a plea deal offered by the state and pled guilty in exchange for the 17-year sentence. 4/ (more…)

September 20, 2008

PAST WRONGS BEYOND THE REACH OF PROSECUTION

Filed under: Federal Crimes Lawyer, Homicide Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:31 am

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…)

September 10, 2008

THE AFFAIR OF A JUDGE, DA, AND A KILLER

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

Would you want a Judge presiding over a criminal case against you sleeping with the District Attorney prosecuting that case?

Didn’t think so. Most people wouldn’t. You expect a Judge to be neutral, free of the slightest appearance of impropriety. You expect a District Attorney to be zealous, honest, and even-handed in the prosecution of criminal cases. Those general expectations – what the State Bar calls the rules of ethical conduct – are compromised when a District Attorney prosecutes a case before a Judge with whom the District Attorney is having a sexual liaison.

That controversial issue has become a highly-publicized feature in the capital murder case of Charles Dean Hood. Attorneys working to save Hood from lethal injection charged, and ultimately proved, that 19 years ago when the condemned inmate was tried and convicted in a Collin County District Court, former District Attorney Tom O’Connell, who prosecuted Hood, was reportedly having a romantic affair the former trial judge, Verla Sue Holland, who presided over the trial.

Hood was scheduled for execution on September 10, 2008, but the day before the execution was to be carried out, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a reprieve in the case. The appeals court, on which Holland had previously served as a judge, ducked the sexual liaison issue involving Holland and O’Connell and instead issued the reprieve on what the court said were “developments in the law regarding (jury) nullification instructions.”

The appeals court had previously rejected this same jury instruction issue in Hood’s case but said it was now “prudent to reconsider the decision we [previously] issued.” (more…)

Older Posts »

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