CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

June 17, 2009

DNA CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST

City of Houston Sued; Disgraced Crime Lab on Trial After Wrongfully Convicted Man Exonerated After 17 Years in Prison

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

George Rodriquez was a 26-year-old young man in 1987 when he was convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl in Harris County. A critical piece of evidence that led to his conviction was a pubic hair found in the girl’s underwear. A serologist with the Houston City Police Department’s crime lab, who we now know had a history of fabricating evidence to suit local prosecutorial and law enforcement needs, determined that the hair did not belong to a suspect named Isidro Yanez but the serologist did not eliminate Rodriquez as the owner of the hair. Seventeen years later DNA, which was not used as evidence in criminal trials in 1987, established that the hair in fact belonged to Yanez and not to Rodriquez.

At age 43 Rodriquez was released from the Texas prison system to be embraced by three daughters who had grown up while he was wrongfully imprisoned. He was able to visit the grave site of his deceased father who had not survived long enough to see his son vindicated. It was indeed a hard 17-year ordeal. There is no comfort for innocent men in prison—not even from their fellow inmates, especially if they have been convicted a sex offense against a child. The “sex offender” stigma places these individuals at the bottom of the prison subculture. The only real support they have are family members who refuse to accept the validity of the “criminal conviction” imposed upon their loved one.

It’s now payback time. George Rodriquez is now appearing before a local federal court where his attorney Barry Scheck, co-director of New York’s Cardozo School of Law’s Innocence Project, is demanding that the City of Houston to pay his client “tens of millions” of dollars in damages for the 1987 wrongful conviction. In his opening statement in U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa Gilmore’s courtroom, Scheck told jurors: “We will prove a false and misleading serology report violated [Rodriquez’s] constitutional right to a fair trial.”

Scheck announced his intention to call former Harris County District Attorney Johnny Holmes and former Houston Police Chief Lee Brown as witnesses. Attorney Robert Cambrice, who is representing the City of Houston, did spare the rod of accountability for Holmes or Rodriquez’s defense attorney. The Houston Chronicle reported (June 17, 2009) that Cambrice laid the blame for Rodriquez’s wrongful conviction “on bad lawyering by the prosecutor and Rodriquez’s late defense attorney that led to the false conviction, not an unquestioned lie by a city employee.” (more…)

June 11, 2009

THE HARRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Past Abuses, Hopes for Better Future

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Three recent stories in the Houston Chronicle exposed serious flaws in the Harris County criminal justice system. The first story concerned a 60-year prison term imposed on Andrew Wayne Hawthorne, a serial child molester. Hawthorne molested an eight year old boy in the fall of 2002. A crime for which a wrongly accused man, Ricardo Rachell, was convicted and sentenced to prison.  Ricardo Rachell was convicted for this sexual assault and spent more than six years in the Texas prison system before readily available DNA evidence at the time of his arrest was finally tested and established his innocence.

We have written about this travesty of justice in previously but what disturbed us most about the recent Chronicle article (June 5, 2009; http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6457829.html ) were the photos of Rachell and Hawthorne. Rachell’s face at the time the photo was taken, and as it appeared at the time of his arrest and subsequent conviction, was horribly disfigured by a shotgun blast. There is no way these two men could have been mistaken for each other.

Unless, of course, the child victim was influenced into making the mistaken identification by someone bent on revenge and who was convinced that the disfigured Rachell, a neighborhood “freak,” was the man who molested the boy. The Houston Police Department accepted the child’s mistaken identification without any meaningful independent investigation to determine if the identification was correct. As a result, an innocent man spent six years in prison for something he didn’t do – and even with his innocence established through DNA testing, he will forever have the haunted memories of years in Texas prison labeled as a child sex offender.

The second Chronicle story (June 6, 2009) involved the release of a U.S. Justice Department report that found poor access to health care in life-threatening situations, unnecessary use of physical force, denial of mental health care, and inattention to suicide prevention violates the constitutional rights of inmates in the Harris County Jail. (more…)

January 20, 2009

CHILD PREDATORS AND PUNISHMENT

Disparate Treatment of Sex Offenders, Punishment and Public Policy

Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

“Child predator” is now among the two worst words in the American lexicon. A 42-year-old Houston resident, we will call him John Doe, recently learned as much. According to allegations by law enforcement, the Magnolia High School institutional aide decided last October to look up former students on Facebook from high schools where he had worked.

Law enforcement authorities believe it started out as an innocent venture. But it did not remain innocent. A 16-year-old boy responded to John Doe’s query. John Doe had known the teenager at Westwood High School in the Round Rock school district between 2004 and 2007. Austin Detective Joel Pridgeon said the communications between the school employee and student quickly escalated from innocent online chatting to sexual solicitation.

The Houston Chronicle report about the episode did not disclose how law enforcement got involved in the case. The newspaper briefly reported that John Doe confessed when he was confronted by Pridgeon in Houston. The detective then returned to Austin where he secured a warrant charging John Doe with online solicitation of a minor. The school employee could have been charged under either of the two Texas solicitation of a minor statutes.

First, Texas Penal Code Article 33.021 defines “online solicitation of a minor”:

(a) In this section:
(1) ”Minor” means:
(A) an individual who represents himself or herself to be younger than 17 years of age; or
(B) an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 17 years of age.
(2) ”Sexual contact,” “sexual intercourse,” and “deviate sexual intercourse” have the meanings assigned by Section 21.01.
(3) ”Sexually explicit” means any communication, language, or material, including a photographic or video image, that relates to or describes sexual conduct, as defined by Section 43.25.
(b) A person who is 17 years of age or older commits an offense if, with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, intentionally:
(1) communicates in a sexually explicit manner with a minor; or
(2) distributes sexually explicit material to a minor.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, knowingly solicits a minor to meet another person, including the actor, with the intent that the minor will engage in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with the actor or another person. (more…)

January 10, 2009

NO RIGHT TO SUE INTERNET SEX SERVICE

Looking for Love in all the Wrong Places, Turning a Blind Eye

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and
Paralegal Billy Sinclair

SexSearch is an “online adult dating service.” It charges a fee to assist its paid members in their search of sexual encounters. An Ohio gentleman identified only as John Doe became a “Gold Member” of SexSearch in October 2005 for a fee of $29.95 per month. John Doe accepted the “Terms and Conditions” of the website which included a “promise” that he was at least 18 years of age.

Jane Roe was also a “Gold Member” of SexSearch in October 2005. She had likewise agreed to the “Terms and Conditions” of the website, attesting that she was at least 18 years of age. In fact, she stated in her “profile” that she was born on June 15, 1987.

John Doe and Jane Roe met online through SexSearch. Jane Roe was apparently a generous spirit. She wanted sexual adventures. That’s why she paid SexSearch the $29.95 Gold Member fee. She apparently seized the opportunity to invite John Doe to her home on November 15, 2005. The Ohio couple engaged in mutually agreeable sex on three occasions after that first invitation.

But at some point in December 2005, for some reason, Jane Roe notified the local police that she was only fourteen years of age and had been sexually involved with the older John Doe. Faced with this serious criminal threat to social order, the local police on December 30, 2005 armored up, rushed to John Doe’s home, surrounded it, and demanded that the criminal menace surrender immediately. (more…)

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