<?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; appellate review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/tag/appellate-review/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>INADVERENT TRIAL ERROR COSTLY FOR CLIENT</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/05/05/inadverent-trial-error-costly-for-client/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/05/05/inadverent-trial-error-costly-for-client/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 17:39:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Houston Criminal Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appellate review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intoxilyzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orensic science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=173</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Offer of Proof; Preserving Error for Appellate Review under Rule 103(a) (2)

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

 

In a recent article (“False Forensics: An Attorney’s Worst Nightmare.” 05-01-09), we reported on the increasing problems associated with the specialized field of forensic science. Prestigious organizations and scientists are calling now for a National Institute of Forensic Science with strict standards and enforcement mechanisms set up to insure that only truthful and valid forensic evidence is used to convict criminal defendants. It was faulty forensic science and lack of professional standards that prompted a former Houston Police Department crime lab technician to testify falsely in the rape and robbery trial of Gary Alvin Richard in 1987. Richard was recently released from prison after serving 22 years on a life sentence for violent crimes he did not commit. He case marked the fourth criminal defendant wrongfully convicted in Harris County because HPD crime lab technicians either lied or misrepresented forensic evidence test results to produce criminal convictions for unethical county prosecutors.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/05/05/inadverent-trial-error-costly-for-client/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OBJECTIONS, BOLSTERING, AND APPELLATE REVIEW</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/02/14/objections-bolstering-and-appellate-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/02/14/objections-bolstering-and-appellate-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:33:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appellate review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bolstering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child abuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child sex crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impermissible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Objections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual abuse]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Objections to Bolstering Testimony Should Communicate Evidentiary Basis, The Texas Rules of Evidence, Article 103, requires that a timely objection be based on a specific ground in order to preserve for appellate review an alleged trial error concerning the admissibility of evidence.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/02/14/objections-bolstering-and-appellate-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

