CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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.

While 48 percent (and 57% of the white voters) of the 131 million people who cast votes in the presidential election did not vote for President-elect Obama, the Illinois Senator told them in his victory acceptance speech that he heard their concerns and would be their president as much as he would be the president of those who voted for him. The nation desperately needs that kind of inclusive leadership.

Yes we can. This nation must find the political will and moral courage to thoroughly reject political partisanship, to find ways to protect the retirement savings of the elderly, to stymie the ruthless pace of home foreclosures, to make the power brokers on Wall Street as accountable as the small business owners on Main Street, and to make sure that every citizen in this country has a reasonable opportunity to secure health care coverage.

Yes we can. The American people have spoken, both loudly and clearly. They believe that Barack Obama is the person who can achieve these lofty but attainable goals. All Americans now have a fundamental civic responsibility to support the President-elect as he undertakes the awesome task of making our individual lives better, safer and more productive. Indeed Barack Obama now has the opportunity to be the Roosevelt of the 21st century just as Roosevelt was the Lincoln of the 20th century and Lincoln the Washington of the 19th century – and we believe he has the incredible gift of intelligence, courage and fortitude to not only seize but fulfill this opportunity. (more…)

By:  Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John T. Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

Would you want a Judge presiding over a criminal case against you sleeping with the District Attorney prosecuting that case?

Didn’t think so. Most people wouldn’t. You expect a Judge to be neutral, free of the slightest appearance of impropriety. You expect a District Attorney to be zealous, honest, and even-handed in the prosecution of criminal cases. Those general expectations – what the State Bar calls the rules of ethical conduct – are compromised when a District Attorney prosecutes a case before a Judge with whom the District Attorney is having a sexual liaison.

That controversial issue has become a highly-publicized feature in the capital murder case of Charles Dean Hood. Attorneys working to save Hood from lethal injection charged, and ultimately proved, that 19 years ago when the condemned inmate was tried and convicted in a Collin County District Court, former District Attorney Tom O’Connell, who prosecuted Hood, was reportedly having a romantic affair the former trial judge, Verla Sue Holland, who presided over the trial.

Hood was scheduled for execution on September 10, 2008, but the day before the execution was to be carried out, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a reprieve in the case. The appeals court, on which Holland had previously served as a judge, ducked the sexual liaison issue involving Holland and O’Connell and instead issued the reprieve on what the court said were “developments in the law regarding (jury) nullification instructions.”

The appeals court had previously rejected this same jury instruction issue in Hood’s case but said it was now “prudent to reconsider the decision we [previously] issued.” (more…)

Two Cases of Child Murder; Only One Faces Death Penalty

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

The District Attorney’s Office in Galveston, Texas, has in recent months confronted death penalty decisions in two high profile cases involving parents brutally murdering their children. Both cases allegedly involved parents killing their children in a calculated, premeditated manner. In April 2008 the District Attorney elected not to seek the death penalty in one case but in August 2008 decided to seek the death penalty in the other. Why?

Let it be stated very firmly at the outset of this piece that we do not support the death penalty in any case under any circumstances. We are a criminal defense law firm dedicated to the preservation of life and liberty– not death. But the disparity in the decision-making by the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office in these two capital child murder cases begs scrutiny.

The first case involves Riley Ann Sawyers, a beautiful two-year-old child who became known to the nation as “Baby Grace.” The child’s biological mother, Kimberly Trenor, and her stepfather, Royce Zeigler II, were reportedly upset with the child’s manners. By the mother’s account, Riley Ann either did not know when or how to say “please” and “no sir.” So the parents decided to discipline the child. This allegedly led to a, enraged and brutal beating that killed the child. In October 2007, a fisherman found a plastic storage box floating in Galveston bay containing Riley Ann’s body, which had been wrapped in trash bags.

The second case involves Alijah Mullis whose diaper-clad three-month old body was discovered in January 2008 in an isolated area on the eastern end of Galveston Island by a couple cruising for wildlife. The child’s father, Travis Mullis, allegedly dumped the body there after repeatedly stomping on the child’s head, snuffing out its precious life. The child’s mother, Karen Kohberger, said Mullis indicated to her shortly before the child’s death that he was having flashbacks from being sexually abused as a child. (more…)

By Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John T. Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

The State of Texas executed two foreign nationals during the week of August 5 and 7, 2008. Both men, Jose Ernesto Medellin and Heliberto Chi, were found guilty of committing brutal murders. There was little doubt about their guilt. Had they not been foreign nationals, their executions would have passed under the Texas execution radar basically unnoticed. This is a sad fact in this great state where executions have become all too common.

But they were foreign nationals and their executions had, and will continue to have, international legal and political implications. The controversy associated with these executions centers on this country’s refusal to honor - if not the intent, the spirit – of its international treaty obligations. The treaty obligation in Medellin’s case involved Vienna Convention which provides that when a person is arrested in a foreign country, the arresting officials have an obligation to inform that person of his/her right to consult with, and seek assistance from, the “consular” of their country. Medellin, a Mexican national, was not advised of his “consular rights” when arrested in Harris County in 1994.

Chi’s case, a Honduran national, involved a different treaty – a 1927 U.S. Bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights with Honduras. Unlike the Vienna Convention, the Honduran Bilateral Treaty was “self-executing” – meaning the treaty did not require legislation by the United States Congress to have full force and effect. Last March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Medellin case that the Vienna Convention was not self-executing and, therefore, did not have automatic effect on federal law in this country because Congress had never passed legislation to give rights guaranteed under the treaty full legal force.

The Vienna Convention became a bone of international contention in 2004 when the International Court of Justice, located in the Hague, issued a decision that said the United States had violated the “consular rights” of 51 Mexican nationals convicted of capital crimes in this country and, therefore, they were entitled to a review of their convictions and death sentences. Although his case was not one of the 51 Mexican nationals involved in the ICJ decision, Medellin’s case became the one that ultimately worked its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and led to the precedent ruling that the Vienna Convention was not “self executing.” (more…)

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John T. Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

On July 23, 2008 the State of Mississippi executed Dale Leo Bishop for his involvement in the beating death of 22-year-old Marcus James Gentry. The Bishop execution was significant only because he became the third person put to death in this country who did not actually kill the victim while the actual killer received life imprisonment.

In 1998 Bishop, Gentry, and Jessie Johnson engaged in a night of heavy drinking and drug use. They ended up in Gentry’s car on an isolated dirt road near Saltillo, a community in northern Mississippi. A dispute broke out among the men leading Johnson and Bishop to attack Gentry. Johnson struck Gentry 23 times with a hammer before it lodged in the victim’s throat. Bishop was convicted because he held Gentry by the neck during the murderous assault.

Johnson was tried separately from Bishop, convicted, and received a life sentence without parole. Bishop was also convicted by a jury, but elected to have the trial judge impose sentencing. Even though Johnson admitted that he struck the fatal blows that killed Gentry, the judge nonetheless sentenced Bishop to death.

The two others cases in which the actual killer received life while the lesser participant was put to death were Steven Hatch, who was put to death in Oklahoma in 1996, and Doyle Skillern, who was put to death in Texas in 1985. (more…)

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

The International Court of Justice recently issued an order staying the execution of five Mexican nationals held on Texas’ death row in response to a petition filed by the Mexican government. The Mexican government is seeking a review of these particular cases to determine whether the State’s denial of the condemned inmates access to the Mexican Consulate after their arrest adversely impacted their defenses.

One of the Mexican nationals is condemned killer Jose Medellin who has an August 5, 2008 scheduled execution date. Gov. Rick Perry immediately issued a statement through a spokesman that the rapist-murderer’s execution would not be halted.

The Houston Chronicle reported that the Mexican government had sought the stays of execution for the Mexican nationals because “the paramount interest in human life is at stake.” The Mexican government reasoned that if the executions are carried out without the denial of access to the Mexican Consulate issue being fully developed, “Mexico would forever be deprived of the opportunity to vindicate its rights and those of the nationals concerned.”

Gov. Perry was not persuaded. Did they think he would be?” The world court has no standing in Texas and Texas is not bound by a ruling or edict from a foreign court,” the Governor said through spokesman Robert Black said. “It is easy to get caught up in discussions of international law and justice and treaties. It’s very important to remember that these individuals are on death row for killing our citizens.” (more…)