<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.6" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION</title>
	<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog</link>
	<description>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:43:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />

	<item>
		<title>RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS</title>
		<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/11/19/right-to-keep-and-bear-arms/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>YES WE CAN</title>
		<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/11/14/yes-we-can/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>CAN ONE SPOUSE BE MADE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE OTHER?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Spousal Privilege in Criminal Cases

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

A potential client of the John T. Floyd Law Firm recently asked if his wife could be compelled to give testimony against him concerning possible criminal conduct. Like any answer to most legal questions, our answer to the potential client was “depends upon the circumstances.”]]></description>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/11/08/can-one-spouse-be-made-to-testify-against-the-other/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>PROSECUTORIAL OVERCHARGING</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Multiple Counts, Lesser-Included Offenses and Double Jeopardy

By Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

One of the quiet abuses in the nation’s criminal justice system is prosecutors overcharging criminal defendants. In their zeal to prosecute and convict, prosecutors file multiple counts against a defendant in a single indictment involving the same criminal conduct knowing – or least possessing the duty to know – that two convictions based on the same conduct will almost always be reversed on appeal.  Criminal defense lawyers argue that many prosecutors charge multiple counts against a defendant in an attempt to prejudice a defendant, insinuating that the defendant must have done something to justify the multiple counts.  There were two recent examples of this prosecutorial abuse – one involving a Texas case and the other involving a federal case in California.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/11/04/prosecutorial-overcharging/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>DNA EXONERATIONS QUESTION EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Flawed, Suggestive Photo Lineups Resulting in Eyewitness Misidentification and Wrongly Convicted

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John T. Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The Dallas Morning News (October 2008) ran two articles written by Steve McGonigle and Jennifer Emily that linked 19 DNA exonerations to faulty eyewitness testimony. These two investigative reporters opened their series with the tragic story of Wiley Fountain who spent 15 years in the Texas prison system wrongfully convicted of rape:]]></description>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/30/dna-exonerations-question-eyewitness-testimony/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>HEARSAY EVIDENCE, OBJECTIONS</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Critical Need For Timely And Specific Objections During A Criminal Trial

By Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

There is rarely a time when a defense attorney does not find the need to object during a criminal trial because the prosecution either attempts to introduce inadmissible evidence or engages in some questionable conduct concerning the proffer of evidence.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/26/hearsay-evidence-objections/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>THE JUDICIAL WARS INVOKED BY CRACK SENTENCING</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Supreme Court: Federal Judges Have Discretion at Sentencing

By Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, a federal district court judge must consider each of the factors prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing an appropriate criminal sentence. The § 3553 factors are:

“Nature and circumstances of the offense” and defendant’s “history and characteristics.” Id., at (a)(1). Under U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence the sentencing judge is limited to those facts (1) “reflected in the jury verdict,” (2) admitted by the defendant, (3) contained in defendant’s guilty plea, or (4) reflect prior convictions. See: Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004) [facts affecting sentence must be found by a jury]. 
The general purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act. Id., at (a)(2). The purposes of this Act are to have a sentence “(A) reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (d) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner …” 
The types of sentences available. Id., at (a)(3). 
The policy statements of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Id., at (a)(5). 
The need to avoid sentencing disparities between defendants convicted of similar conduct. Id., at (a)(6). 
The need to provide restitution to victims. Id., at (a)(7). 
The applicable sentence range recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Id., at (a)(4). ]]></description>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/25/the-judicial-wars-invoked-by-crack-sentencing/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>THE PITFALLS OF DELAYED OUTCRY TESTIMONY</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Hearsay Statements of Child Abuse Victims and Delayed Outcry

By Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

“Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered into evidence to prove the truth of some matter being asserted. See: Tex. R. of Evid. 801. In English, hearsay is testimony about what somebody heard from somebody else. Hearsay testimony is generally inadmissible in a criminal trial. See: Tex. R. of Evid. 802. However, Article 38.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides an exception to the hearsay rule by allowing hearsay testimony in the prosecution of an offense committed against children twelve years of age and younger.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/18/the-pitfalls-of-delayed-outcry-testimony/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>FABRICATION:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Only Defense In Sexual Assault Cases Not Subject To Rebuttal Evidence, Keeping Extraneous Crimes, Wrongs, and Acts Out

By Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Writing in her book “The Cross-Examination of a Young Child in a Sexual Assault Case: Voice for the Defense” (Oct. 1999), Annabelle Hall said that jurors following a sexual assault trial involving a child raise the following questions:

    * Why would a child lie about sexual abuse?
    * How can a child know so much about sex if she has not been abused?
    * Would a child lie about sexual abuse?
    * Why would a child make the story up?

These questions clearly demonstrate why a defense attorney in a sexual assault case faces such a difficult task establishing a “fabrication” defense. A “fabrication” defense in a sexual assault case is premised on the theory that the victim has “made up” or deliberately lied about the sexual assault. As difficult as it may be to logically wrap the mind around this concept, reliable studies (including the U.S. Justice Department) have revealed that anywhere between 25 to 60 percent of all sexual assault allegations are false. Put simply, somewhere between one-quarter to one-half of the rape allegations leveled in this country are fabricated for one reason or another. Many involve child victims.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/16/fabrication/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>THE ACQUITTAL</title>
		<description><![CDATA[John Floyd Secures Not Guilty After Jury Trial, Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child younger than 14, 263rd District Court, Harris County, Case No. 1156699

A former Precinct 4 deputy accused of aggravated sexual assault of a child was found “not guilty” after three days of trial and six hours of jury deliberation. The State argued the defendant, in 2000, sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl when he was a detention officer at the Harris County Juvenile Detention Center where the girl was detained.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/09/the-acquittal/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>







