CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

June 30, 2009

THE DNA FALLOUT CONTINUES

Filed under: Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 6:04 pm

District Attorney’s Office of the Third Judicial District v. Osborne; U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Ability for Wrongfully Convicted to Prove Innocence

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

George Rodriquez spent 17 years in the Texas prison system for a crime he did not commit. He was 26 years of age in 1987 when he was wrongfully convicted by a Harris County jury for the rape of a 14-year-old girl. The jury based its decision on a critical piece of forensic evidence; a pubic hair found in the victim’s underwear. A serologist with the Houston City Police Department’s Crime Lab determined that the pubic hair did not belong to another suspect in the rape case, Isidro Yanez. The serologist testified at Rodriquez’s trial, saying that while his forensic testing ruled out Yanez, it did not rule out Rodriquez.

Seventeen years later DNA testing established that the pubic hair in fact belonged to Yanez and not to Rodriquez. Rodriquez was released from prison in 2004. The Harris County District Attorney’s office refused to declare Rodriquez “actually innocent” of the crime. That official refusal to acknowledge his innocence precluded him from receiving a pardon and being awarded state compensation for his wrongful confinement. He filed a federal civil rights suit against the City of Houston and a federal court jury on June 25, 2009 awarded him $5 million dollars in damages for the 17-year wrongful imprisonment.

The Rodriquez case has not been the only Texas DNA case is the news lately. Two men convicted in the infamous 1991 Austin “yogurt shop” murder case were recently released on bond from jail. The convictions of the two men, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen, were reversed several months ago on appeal after DNA tests on the state’s evidence indicated the presence of an unknown suspect. Attorneys for the two men say the presence of DNA evidence of the unknown suspect exonerates their clients. Prosecutors do not agree. They believe the new evidence only indicates that yet another person was involved in the crime; therefore, prosecutors plan to continue their prosecution of Springsteen and Scott for the murders of the four teenage girls killed during the robbery of the Austin yogurt shop.

These two Texas cases illustrate the potentially devastating impact of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in an Alaska case that held state prisoners do not enjoy a constitutional right to post-conviction access to the State’s evidence for DNA testing. 1/ (more…)

June 23, 2009

A DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer, Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 12:03 pm

Rule 606(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence; Conducting Inquiry into Juror Misconduct

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

Johnny Ray Ocon was put on trial in Ector County, Texas for the crime of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Sex offense cases involving children are the most difficult for a criminal defense attorney to try. Defense attorneys must be very careful and thorough during the voir dire of prospective jurors to identify any hidden biases a juror may harbor in such cases. It is not always easy to sift through an individual juror’s personality in the short period of time, and with a limited number of questions, to identify and isolate any prejudices the juror may have against the defendant.

Ocon’s attorney conducted a diligent and comprehensive voir dire of several dozen prospective jurors before twelve were chosen to hear the case against Ocon. Those twelve jurors took a solemn oath to be fair and impartial. Like most defense attorneys at the conclusion of voir dire and after the jurors were sworn, Ocon’s attorney knew there were probably a couple jurors who would not approach the case with an open mind despite their sworn duty to do so. But the attorney had put forth his best effort to select the kind of fair and impartial jury to which his client was entitled under both the federal and Texas constitutions.

But nothing throughout the jury selection process had prepared Ocon’s attorney for what he would encounter on the second day of the trial. During a brief recess, the attorney entered the men’s restroom in the county courthouse. He overheard someone in the next stall talking on a cell phone. The following are portions of the conversation the defense attorney heard:

Brenda – They’ve got me on this damn jury … I don’t know why the hell they picked me … I would rather be on a double ax murderer then [sic] this damn case … It’s dirty, disgusting … No, unless we convict the bastard today, then I’m kind of stuck here. (more…)

June 17, 2009

DNA CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST

Filed under: Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:11 am

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

Filed under: Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:07 am

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…)

April 11, 2009

CHILD PORN: AN INCREASING PROBLEM IN ALL SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer, Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 12:00 pm

Federally Funded Task Forces Make Online Crimes Against Children Top Priority

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

There has been a recent rash of media reports about local residents getting arrested or sentenced for possession of child pornography. For example, on March 13, 2009, the Houston Chronicle carried a report about a Houston attorney being given a six and one-half year sentence by U.S. District Court Judge Sim Lake. Williamson possessed 84 child pornography images on his computer. After he completes his prison sentence, the suspended attorney will be under “supervised release” for the rest of his life, must register as a sex offender, and attend a sex offender treatment program.

The following day the Chronicle carried a story about a 24-year-old Somerset, Kentucky man being charged with promotion of child pornography, online solicitation of a minor and sexual performance of a child. He was indicted for persuading an 11-year-old Humble girl to send him nude photographs of herself while the two played video games online with their PlayStation 3 consoles last December.

“This is another venue these guys are getting to use now that hasn’t been seen before,” Sgt. Gary Spurger, a Harris County Precinct 4 deputy constable, told the Chronicle. “They’re on PlayStation or Xbox playing online games.”

A March 19, 2009 Chronicle article featured the arrest of a former member of Bikers Against Child Abuse, a child abuse prevention organization. He was also arrested for possession of child pornography. And that same day the Chronicle carried yet another story about the federal child pornography indictment of a convicted sex offender already serving time in a state prison for a 1996 possession of child pornography conviction. This man had been given a state probation but had it revoked after he failed to register as a sex offender. The current federal indictment charged Hale with possessing child pornography while he was on state probation. (more…)

April 8, 2009

WHAT IS SEXTING?

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:46 pm

Sexting Among Children; Criminal Behavior or Brash Sign of the Times

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

First, and foremost, “sexting” among teenagers can be a crime. Second, it’s stupid, sophomoric behavior that can quickly ruin reputations, destroy employment opportunities, and cost a lot of money to deal with its legal consequences.

“Sexting” is a term, according to Urban Dictionary, created by the media which refers to the sending or posting of sexually suggestive text and images in cyberspace. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and CosmoGirl.com recently released the results from the first study ever conducted concerning the relationship between sex and cyberspace.

The study, Sex and Tech: Results From a Survey of Teens and Young Adults, produced some disturbing findings. For example, it found that a “significant number of teens (age 13 thru 19) have electronically sent, or posted online, nude or semi-nude pictures or video of themselves.” One in five of the 653 teens surveyed engaged in this risky behavior with 22% of the surveyed girls having engaged in sexting and 18% of the boys having done so.

This group of teens are even more heavily involved in sending sexually suggestive messages. 39% sent or posted sexually suggestive messages: 37% of the girls and 40% of the boys. 48% of the teens said they had received such messages. (more…)

March 22, 2009

THE RACHELL REPORT

Filed under: Sexual Assault Crime Attorney — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:09 pm

Harris County District Attorney’s Office Discloses “Cascading, System-Wide Breakdown” Led to Wrongful Conviction and 6 Years Imprisonment of Innocent Man

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

On December 14, 2008, we posted a blog titled The Conflicting Faces of Crime. One of those faces involved the wrongful conviction of Ricardo Rachell in 2003 for the aggravated sexual assault of an eight year old boy. Rachell was released from custody in December 2008 after he was exonerated by DNA evidence. The Harris County District Attorney’s Office and the Houston Police Department undertook a joint investigation to determine what went wrong in the Rachell case. On March 12, 2009, the two law enforcement agencies released the “Rachell Report” (“report”) which concluded that Rachell’s wrongful conviction was the result of a “cascading, system-wide breakdown.”

The “breakdown” in the Rachell case actually began outside the system. The report states that on Sunday, October 20, 2002, the eight year old boy “was observed running down Griggs Road, waving his hands in the air and crying.” An elderly man went to the child’s aid by taking him to Wyatt’s Cafeteria. Two women then took the boy home. The child did not convey to any of these people that he had been sexually assaulted. “He just stated that a man had a knife and was trying to kill him,” the report said. He did not provide a description of the attacker to these witnesses either.

Once home, patrol officers from the police department were summoned. The boy told these officers that a man had tried to kill him. The report does not indicate if the boy told these patrol officers the man had either tried or had actually sexually assaulted him. The report only stated that:

“The details he gave officers that night was that he was offered ten dollars to pick up trash and the man took him on the man’s bicycle. The location where he was abducted was the 3700 block of Southlawn. Those first officers did speak with the Complainant’s six year old friend who was with him just before the suspect took Complainant on his bike. The six year old also conveyed that the Complainant was offered ten dollars to pick up trash and was on a bicycle. The only description of the suspect in the offense report is that he was an unknown black male, age 30.” (more…)

February 14, 2009

OBJECTIONS, BOLSTERING, AND APPELLATE REVIEW

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 6:33 pm

Objections to Bolstering Testimony Should Communicate Evidentiary Basis

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

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.

An en banc Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seventeen years ago held that “… all a party has to do to avoid the forfeiture of a complaint on appeal is to let the trial judge know what he wants, why he thinks himself entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him at a time when the trial court is in a proper position to do something about it. Of course, when it seems from context that a party failed effectively to communicate his desire, then reviewing courts should not hesitate to hold that appellate complaints arising from the event have been lost. But otherwise, they should reach the merits of those complaints without requiring that the parties read some special script to make their wishes known.” See: Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex.Crim. App. 1992).

The Court of Criminal Appeals recently reaffirmed the Lankston principle that objections to the admissibility of evidence must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for appellate review. See: Rivas v. State, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 98 (Jan. 28, 2009). The Rivas court rejuvenated the language of Lankston to set the stage for its ultimate ruling, saying:

“Our system of justice is characteristically adversarial. One consequence is that many substantive and procedural features, especially most evidentiary rules, are really optional with the parties. Although we may speak of evidence as inadmissible, it is more precise, if not more correct, to say that the rules make such evidence objectionable. Indeed, this is just another way of calling attention to the fact that no issue concerning the admissibility of evidence ever arises unless one of the parties objects to it.

”It follows that the trial judge’s role in the admission and exclusion of evidence is generally not called into play unless a dispute develops between the parties concerning the proper application of an evidentiary rule. And because, absent any such dispute, our system generally expects him not to interfere with the presentation of evidence, it likewise does not fault him for refusing to interfere when a party fails to make the basis for his objection known. Beyond this, there are no technical considerations or form of words to be used. Straightforward communication in plain English will always suffice.” Id., at LEXIS 1-2. (more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

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