CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

January 20, 2010

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY: JUDICIAL CHAOS LEADS TO HORRIFIC SENTENCING DISPARITIES

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:28 pm

Court Describes Federal Sentencing Disparities as “A Picture of Injustice”

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In 1984 the United States Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act (“SRA”), and as part of the Act, Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission (“Commission”) to “establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system.” 1/ The Commission was charged with the responsibility of creating U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) that would assist Federal judges in the sentencing process to fulfill Congress’ five purposes for imposing criminal sentences. 2/

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a)(2) lists the five congressionally-mandated purposes for sentencing:

  • To reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
  • To afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
  • To protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
  • To provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

While the Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors were intended to eliminate the gross disparities in federal sentencing practices before the SRA, they have failed miserably in many significant respects, particularly in child pornography cases. Since the enactment of the SRA, Congress has repeatedly created new offenses, increased penalties, and issued directives to the Commission concerning child pornography offenses. 3/ The following is a list of many of the laws enacted by Congress over the last three decades regarding child pornography-related offenses:

  • Protection of Children Against Exploitation Act of 1978;
  • Child Protection Act of 1984;
  • Child Sexual Abuse and Pornography Act of 1986;
  • Child Abuse Victims’ Rights Act of 1986;
  • Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990;
  • Sex Crimes Against Children Prevention Act of 1995;
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998;
  • Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003;
  • PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008;
  • Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2008;
  • Keep the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008; and
  • Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act of 2008.

(more…)

January 14, 2010

THESE ARE DANGEROUS TIMES IN WHICH WE LIVE

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:55 am

Civil Commitment: Pre-Emptive Strike against Future Acts by Convicted Sex Offenders

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In 1999 John Charles Volungus plead guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to three federal criminal sex offenses: possession of child pornography; receipt of child pornography through interstate commerce by means of a computer; and use of a facility of interstate commerce (computer) to persuade a person under the age of eighteen to engage in a sexual act. 1/ He was sentenced to 53 months in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to be followed by a term of supervised release. He was released from actual custody only to have his supervised release revoked. He was returned to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for another23 months. This latter term of imprisonment expired on February 15, 2007. 2/ Although housed at a number of different facilities while in the custody of the BOP, Volungus was confined at the Federal Medical Center Devens in Ayer, Massachusetts (a prison hospital) when he completely satisfied his prison sentence. 3/

Shortly before Volungus’ February 2007 release date, the United States Government filed a petition to have him “civilly committed” as a “ sexually dangerous person” already in federal custody. The government’s action was based on a provision of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (Walsh Act), which was signed into law in 2006 by former President George W. Bush. This little known provision allows the government to request the civil commitment of any inmate committed to federal penal custody for a sex offense upon completion of the inmate’s federal sentence. 4/ The provision is known in the federal court system as a “Section 4248 proceeding.”

Section 4248 defines a “sexually dangerous person” as anyone “who has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation and who is sexually dangerous to others.” 4248 says the individual becomes “sexually dangerous” when he/she “suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder as a result of which he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.” 5/

Section 4248 is implemented by the government in the following manner: “A responsible federal official (the Attorney General, the director of the BOP, or the designee of either) may initiate [civil] commitment proceedings by petitioning the federal district court in the judicial district in which a targeted person is confined. The petition must certify to the court that the target, whom we shall call respondent, ‘is a sexually dangerous person.’ The filing of the petition stays the respondent’s release from federal custody, notwithstanding the expiration of his sentence, ‘pending completion of procedures’ described in the Walsh Act.

(more…)

December 19, 2009

THE REAL DANGER OF EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE EVIDENCE

Filed under: Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 9:09 am

Man Convicted on 2 Counts Indecency with a Child Found Actually Innocent After Nearly Two Decades in Prison: Extraneous Evidence False, Expert Testimony Wrong.

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

We have written on numerous occasions about the dangers of “extraneous offense evidence” when allowed into evidence in a criminal trial. What is extraneous offense evidence?

Extraneous evidence is evidence of another crime, wrong or bad act that is not relevant to proving the specific allegation made in the charging instrument, information or indictment.  For example, a prior unrelated DWI conviction would be an extraneous crime in an arson case.  It would generally be inadmissible in the guilt/innocence stage of a criminal case because it is irrelevant to the arson charge and has no bearing on any fact that is of consequence in that case.

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts that are extraneous to the underlying charge are specifically inadmissible to prove the character of a person to show that person acted in conformity therewith.  There are exceptions however when it can be shown that the evidence is relevant to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. Texas Rules of Evidence 404(b).

If a court finds this evidence is admissible for one of the listed exceptions, and after proper defense objection, the judge must conduct a balancing test under which the court weighs the probative value (its relevance to some issue such as motive, intent, opportunity, plan etc.) against the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury caused by the evidence.  Texas Rules of Evidence 403. (more…)

October 7, 2009

ROGUE JUROR DID NOT PREVENT ACQUITTAL

Filed under: Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 5:32 pm

Another Not Guilty: Client Falsely Accused of Indecency with Child Acquitted After Trial by Jury

By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd

Every prospective juror summoned to court for jury duty in a criminal case is questioned by counsel for the State and defendant as to his/her willingness to follow the law as given by the judge at the conclusion of the trial. A prospective juror who cannot, for whatever reason, state unequivocally that he/she will follow the law is excused for cause. Thus, a juror accepted by both the defense and the State for jury service has a solemn duty bound by a sworn oath to follow the law.

Myself, and Co-counsel Christopher Carlson, recently faced the dilemma of a recalcitrant juror who decided several hours into jury deliberations that she no longer wanted to participate in the proceedings. We were trying a particularly difficult indecency with a child case based on the allegation by a thirteen year old girl who charged that our client had inappropriately touched her during a recreational outing. The teenager had been sent to stay at our client’s residence while her mother recuperated from a serious illness. After her father picked her up at the residence, and as they drove home, the teenager reportedly told her father that our client had touched her inappropriately during her weekend stay at his residence. The father conveyed this information to his wife and together they contacted the police.

This case from the very beginning was a classic “he said, she said” case. It did not matter to law enforcement that our client was a law-abiding citizen with impeccable community credentials, who was known to be a decent, caring family man.

Unfortunately, Texas law is quite clear that the testimony of a child alone in a sex case is sufficient to support a criminal conviction. 1/ In fact, the statement the 13-year-old made to law enforcement, standing alone, was sufficient legal evidence to support a criminal conviction against our client. 2/ The State need not proffer medical evidence, forensic evidence, or corroborating testimony to support the victim’s testimony. “She said” evidence is all that is needed to not only bring about a criminal indictment but a conviction as well. (more…)

July 29, 2009

A GOOD FAMILY DOCTOR OR A SECRET PEDOPHILE?

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 12:09 pm

Child Pornography and Exploitation

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Neighbors say the couple that lived in the $1 million home in the 11100 block of South Country Squire Road were “the sweetest on the block” who brought cakes to the new home owners that moved into the exclusive neighborhood. The 69-year-old orthopedic surgeon who lived at the residence was considered the “ideal grandfather figure.” He reportedly bought expensive gifts, including rent-free houses, for the economically deprived parents of several of his youngest child patients. Over a two-decade period he spent as much as $250,000 on these gifts.

But, according to police and Harris County Assistant District Attorney Eric Devlin, the doctor was a secret pedophile who began molesting some of his male child patients as young as four years of age and continued the molestation into the patients’ teen years. Following a two-year investigation by the Houston Metro Internet Task Force that began when a former abused patient, now an adult, came forward and reported the abuse to the police, the doctor was arrested on July 21, 2009 for sexually abusing four former patients when they were young boys.

The arresting authorities told the local media that The doctor was the “smartest, most obsessed” pedophile they had ever encountered. They pointed to two police vans of evidence, including videotapes of the sexual abuse, seized from his office and residence to support this claim. The Houston Chronicle reported that some of the evidence seized included “dozens of binders” of photos of children and news stories about “kidnapping and child brutality.”

“All the time he spent cutting out pictures of little kids, articles about rapes, murders, and brutal deaths and information that would help him ingratiate himself with his victims and any future victims,” Houston juvenile investigator J.R. Roscoe told the Chronicle, “that’s a lot of research. He was very friendly, very kind, a sweet old man. He would be the ideal grandfather, for the role he played.” (more…)

July 21, 2009

MENTALLY RETARDED TEEN GETS 100 YEARS

Filed under: Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:29 am

Mentally Disabled Youth with IQ Of 47, Allowed to Plead Guilty to Sexual Assault of a Child, Judge Orders Sentences to be Served Consecutively

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

The jury said it did not like the sentencing options made available to it. The judge said he was not pleased that he had to sentence an 18-year-old Paris, Texas teenager to 100 years in prison. The district attorney said he “sympathized” with teenager’s situation but it had to be remembered that he “committed a violent sexual crime against a little boy.”

What exactly did Aaron Hart do? A neighbor said she discovered the mentally retarded teenager, who has an IQ of 47, fondling her stepson last November. Hart was arrested and charged with five counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child.

Hart’s attorney allowed the mentally disabled youth to plead guilty at the punishment phase of his trial but elected to have the jury assess punishment at the penalty phase. After hearing all the evidence, jurors were not convinced that prison was the best option for Hart. They sent notes to the judge requesting guidance on possible alternatives to imprisonment. Jurors told the media following the trial that the judge’s responses did not provide them with any “clear answers.” They assumed the judge would impose concurrent sentences on the five convictions.

But that is not what the judge did. He sentenced Hart to 5-year terms on two counts and 30-year terms on three counts. The judge ordered the sentences to be served consecutively for a total of 100 years. Lamar Count Judge Eric Clifford’s offered the lame excuse that he didn’t believe he had any other sentencing options because “in the state of Texas, there isn’t a whole lot you can do with people like him.” (more…)

July 17, 2009

CHILD ADVOCATES OR HIRED GUNS?

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:34 am

Criminal Defense Attorneys Must Be Prepared To Aggressively Challenge Child Assessment Center, Child Abuse Experts

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

The “Mission” statement of the Houston Children Assessment Center “is to provide a professional, compassionate, and coordinated approach to the treatment of sexually abused children and their families and to serve as an advocate for all children in our community.” In its 2008 Annual Report, Yolanda Green, President of the Board of Directors of CAC, added that CAC “is an agency where children whose lives have been torn apart are given hope and the opportunity to begin the road to recovery.”

The CAC, which was founded in 1991, has morphed into more than a child advocacy and protection center. It has become a quasi-official arm of law enforcement and supplies professional witnesses for the Harris County District Attorney’s Office in child sexual assault cases. Virtually every criminal defense attorney in Harris County who has tried a child sexual abuse case faced a CAC “expert” brought into court to testify for the prosecution about these cases. The agency has a history of misrepresenting the facts in these cases to Harris County juries, sometimes at the behest of the District Attorney’s Office.

For example, in April 2004 former Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal was forced to admit that “faulty physical exams” performed by a former nurse at CAC had put in jeopardy some 170 child sexual abuse cases and had possibly resulted in the wrongful conviction of some people.

Children suspected of being the victims of sexual abuse are given physical examinations, counseling and other services at CAC. The District Attorney’s office then uses the center’s “experts”, such as the former nurse who conducted the faulty physical exams in 2004, to testify about the impact on the abused children. Despite the 2004 fiasco, the District Attorney’s office continues to utilize CAC “experts” in child sexual abuse cases, knowing full well the center’s propensity to distort data in this sensitive field. (more…)

July 6, 2009

SHOULD EVIDENCE OF PRIOR FALSE ABUSE ALLEGATIONS BE ADMISSIBLE IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES?

Filed under: Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:06 pm

Inadmissible Evidence under 608(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence May be Admissible under 613(b), Rule 412 or Confrontation Clause

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

A Harris County federal jury recently awarded $5 million to George Rodriquez for the 17 years he spent in the Texas prison system after being wrongfully convicted of the rape of a 14-year-old girl. And a Harris County district court judge last December ordered Ricardo Rachell released after he spent six years in the Texas prison system after being wrongfully convicted of sexually molesting an eight-year-old boy.

These two cases are just a series of wrongful convictions in sex offense cases that have been uncovered in Harris County and throughout the State of Texas. It is easier to wrongfully convict a person of a sex offense than any other crime. There are few crimes that carry such a heinous social stigma. Just the mention of a child sex crime often creates a presumption of guilt (Just look to Michael Jackson). It is one of the few crimes that require only the word of the alleged victim to establish the guilt of the person accused. These are generally “she said/he said” kinds of facts scenarios. Just last year, this Firm successfully defended, at two separate trials, a corrections officer who had been charged with child sex crimes based solely on the word of the female inmates. Although our client was acquitted of the false rape accusations, he and his family were put through an ordeal of financial sacrifice, shame and embarrassment, and the loss of his career in law enforcement.

Beyond intentionally submitted false forensic evidence and mistaken identification, why is it so easy to wrongfully convict defendants charged in sex offense cases? The primary reason is that the evidentiary rules of evidence are stacked against the defendant in favor of protecting the alleged victim from further emotional “trauma” associated with sexual assault. For example, in Texas, a defendant does not have a per se right to impeach a sexual assault victim about prior false sexual assault allegations made by the victim.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) made this abundantly clear in 2000 in the case of Rudolfo Lopez. 1/ Lopez was convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy (forcing the boy to perform oral sex on him over a period of several months) and sentenced to twelve years in prison. At his trial Lopez had sought to introduce evidence that two years earlier the boy had made a false allegation of physical abuse against his mother; namely, that his mother had thrown him against a washing machine. Lopez sought to use this false allegation the boy had made to the Department of Human Services, but the trial court refused to allow the evidence under Rule 608(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Although a state appeals court would later rule that the evidence should have been admitted, the CCA reversed the appeals court ruling and upheld the trial court decision not to admit the false allegation evidence. 2/ (more…)

Older Posts »

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