CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

May 31, 2011

REQUESTS FOR DNA TESTING PRESENT ENORMOUS CHALLENGES

Filed under: Death Penalty Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 2:23 pm

Right to Appointed Counsel Not Absolute: Courts Only Required to Appoint Counsel if Reasonable Grounds Exist for DNA Testing

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Ruben Gutierrez was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the September 5, 1998 robbery/murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison in Brownsville. The elderly woman owned a mobile home park and the trailer in which she lived doubled as an office. Gutierrez was a friend of Harrison’s nephew. He and the nephew, with other neighbors, frequently gathered behind the Harrison trailer to drink and socialize. Through this relationship Gutierrez got to know a lot about how Harrison conducted her business affairs; specifically, that she did not trust banks and kept all of her money in her trailer/office. Gutierrez was one of the few people who knew Harrison kept large sums of money in the trailer.

According to court records, the 21-year-old Gutierrez concocted a plan to “rip-off” Harrison. He recruited two accomplices, Rene and Pedro Garcia, to help him carry out the robbery scheme. On September 5 Gutierrez and Rene Garcia entered the Harrison trailer. When they left with some $600,000.00 Harrison lay dead or dying in a pool of blood, having been stabbed numerous times with two screwdrivers as well as having been severely beaten. Who did what inside the trailer is subject to some dispute. What is virtually certain is that Pedro Garcia remained in a getaway vehicle nearby.

The ensuing police investigation developed information from Harrison’s nephew and four other witnesses that Gutierrez had been seen in the trailer park on the day Harrison was murdered. Three days after the Harrison murder the police went to Gutierrez’s home only to learn he was not there, but they were assured by his mother that she would bring him to the police station. The following day Gutierrez went to the police station and provided investigators with an alibi for the day of Harrison’s murder. He told police he and a friend drove around in the friend’s Corvette all that day, but after interviewing the friend, the police found the alibi did not stand up.

Over the next four days the police arrested Rene and Pedro Garcia who gave statements implicating Gutierrez in the Harrison murder. The police arrested Gutierrez who gave them a second statement. This time he told the police that although he planned the Harrison “rip off,” it was the Garcias who entered the Harrison trailer while he waited in the park. He said that when the Garcias came to pick him up, Rene Garcia had a screwdriver with a lot of blood on it and stated he had killed Harrison. The Garcias, according to Gutierrez, had taken a blue suitcase and a tackle box filled with Harrison’s money. Saying he was repulsed by the murder, Gutierrez told the police he told the Garcias he did not want any of the money and led the police on an unfruitful search for the blue suitcase where he said the Garcias had thrown it.

(more…)

May 23, 2011

ACTUAL INNOCENCE-PUTTING A CAMEL THROUGH EYE OF A NEEDLE

Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 9:44 am

Habeas Claims of Actual Innocence Require “Herculean” Burden by Clear and Convincing Evidence

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

It was March 22, 1987. Near midnight. The Dallas Police Department received a report that a man was lying face down in the street. The man was Jeffery Young who was transported to an area hospital, unconscious and bleeding. Before regaining consciousness, Young died and a subsequent autopsy revealed he had died from what the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said was “severe skull fractures that were the result of multiple blows to the head.” The Dallas police then received another report about a BMW parked in an alley near where Young had been found mortally injured. The police quickly determined the BMW belong to Young.

Two days after Young’s murder a witness name Gladys Oliver went to the police to report what she had seen in the alley the night Young’s BMW was located. She informed the police that there were other witnesses besides her who also saw what transpired in the alley that night. She told investigators she belatedly decided to come forward with her information after learning they had arrested a man named Van Mitchell Spencer for stealing Young’s vehicle. She said the police had the wrong man in custody because she saw Benjamine John Spencer, not Van Mitchell Spencer, getting out of Young’s vehicle in the alley. Another witness, Charles Stewart, whose name was supplied by Oliver, told the police Benjamine Spencer got out of the passenger side of the vehicle, jumped Oliver’s fence, and went through her back yard. He said that when the car door of the vehicle opened a light came on and, besides Spencer, he saw a second man named Nathan Robert Mitchell in the vehicle as he was getting out on the driver’s side. A third witness named Donald Merritt told the police he saw a white man lying in the street, bleeding from the head and struggling to breathe. Merritt also saw the BMW in the alley with an individual named Nathan Robert Mitchell standing next to it. Finally, a fourth witness named Jimmie Cotton told the police that he was cooking dinner in his kitchen when he saw the BMW drive into the alley and Spencer exit the vehicle on the passenger side shortly afterwards.

Based on the information provided by these four witnesses, the Dallas police arrested Spencer and Mitchell for the murder/robbery of Young. All the witnesses testified at Spencer’s trial. Their testimony revealed that the alley in which the BMW pulled into ran behind Oliver’s residence. All the witnesses testified they could see everything in the alley because a nearby street light was on as well as a neighbor’s back porch light. Stewart added that in addition to these lights the light inside the vehicle came on when its doors were open, allowing him a clear view of occupants. Oliver also added that she did not provide the police with this information the day after Young’s murder when the police did a door-to-door canvassing because she feared for her life.

The conditions under which these eyewitness identifications were made are important in this case because, as the New York-based Innocence Project has reported, 75 percent of the 269 DNA exonerations in this country since 1989 involved eyewitness misidentifications. Dallas prosecutors bolstered these eyewitness identifications with testimony from a “jailhouse snitch” named Danny Edwards who was one of Spencer’s cellmates in the county jail. Edwards informed the police that Spencer had told him that he struck Young several times in the head with a pistol before placing him in the backseat of the BMW at which time he struck him several more times as Mitchell drove the vehicle. Edwards testified at Spencer’s trial that Spencer then kicked Young out of the vehicle. Spencer, according to Edwards, killed Young for the BMW which he planned to take to a “chop shop.”

(more…)

January 22, 2011

TEXAS DEATH PENALTY INQUIRY SHUT DOWN

Filed under: Death Penalty Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 2:09 pm

The Real Reason for Abolition: Texas Poses Greatest Risk of Executing an Innocent

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

For two days in December of last year Harris County Criminal District Court Judge Kevin Fine allowed attorneys representing accused capital murderer John Edward Green to present evidence that the process for carrying out the death penalty in this state is so flawed that it creates an unconstitutional risk that an innocent person could be executed. The two-day hearing in the Green case drew national and international media attention because it involved a challenge to the death penalty in the very State which has executed more people than any other since the executions resumed in this country on January 17, 1977.

Last March, Judge Fine’s decision to hear the issue ignited a swirling legal and political firestorm when he declared from the bench during a pretrial hearing in the Green case that the death penalty as applied in Texas was unconstitutional. Harris County District Attorney lashed out at the ruling, saying: “We respectfully, but vigorously, disagree with the trial judge’s ruling, as it has no basis in law or fact. Words are inadequate to describe this Office’s disappointment and dismay with the ruling; sadly it will delay justice for the victims and their families. We will pursue all remedies.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Attorney General Gregg Abbott joined the fray by calling Fine’s decision “an act of unabashed judicial activism.”  A term so often used whenever republicans are confronted with a threatening or novel issue contrary to their ideology.

The following day Judge Fine issued a clarified ruling saying that he had not declared the state’s death penalty itself unconstitutional but had merely called into legal question the procedures under Article 37.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures for carrying out the penalty. The Judge ordered both sides to be prepared to conduct a hearing on the motion.  The case seemed to simmer, disappearing from the political spotlight while the fall elections played themselves out across the state and nation.

Then early last month the firestorm was reignited when the hearing based upon Green’s motion began.  Green’s attorneys sought to present a host of local, state and national death penalty experts who were prepared to offer evidence why the risk of an innocent person being executed, especially in Texas, has become so great as to render the entire death penalty process unconstitutional. To courtroom observers, this seemed like an honest and reasonable motion considering the gravity of possible sentence.  However, Lykos’ office this time chose a different response to the hearing process by refusing to even participate.  The prosecutors responded to the defense motions to admit evidence with panicked whispers of “no comment” and timid assertions that they would respectfully refuse to participate in the hearing.  This shocked, irritated and eventually amused the local criminal defense bar, who had never known the DA’s Office to remain mute on any point in their zealous application of the death penalty. Finally, the District Attorney sought, and secured, an order from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals shutting down the hearing until the appellate court could entertain arguments from the parties involved.

(more…)

December 11, 2010

THE TEXAS DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM BROKEN

Filed under: Death Penalty Crimes Lawyer, Homicide Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:59 pm

Nationally Recognized Experts, Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Cite Risk of Innocents Being Put to Death, State of Texas Replies “No Comment”

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

That question could reasonably be asked of any state that maintains the death penalty. Every system of punishment is cracked in one way or another. The fact that 138 condemned inmates in 26 death penalty states have been exonerated since 1973, and the fact that there have been261 DNA exonerations in this country since 1989, and the fact that our law books are filled with reversals of criminal convictions and death sentences offers compelling evidence that our entire criminal justice system, and, in particular, our death penalty systems is if not broken, certainly flawed. Earlier this year Harris County Criminal District Court Judge Kevin Fine stirred considerable legal and political controversy when he declared from the bench that Texas’ death penalty procedures were unconstitutional. The backlash was so intense, from the state’s attorney general to its governor, that Judge Fine clarified his ruling the next day by saying he had not actually declared the death penalty process unconstitutional and ordered attorneys in the case to submit additional legal arguments detailing how the process was so flawed that it violated the “cruel and unusual punishment” provisions of the Eighth Amendment.

University of Houston Law Center Professor Sandra Guerra Thompson was quoted at the time in the Houston Chronicle at the time as saying: “You never know [if such a ruling will withstand appellate review), but I don’t see it happening at this time. Technically, they’re [the appellate courts] are bound by precedent. There are laws on the books that have ruled on this type of question.” But Professor Thompson added that Judge Fine may have simply wanted to trigger a dialogue in the court system about the death penalty. “If they [judges] feel strongly enough, sometimes they’ll grant a motion like this to buck the system, just to stir the waters.”

Judge Fine’s ruling came in the case of John Edward Green who was indicted for capital murder in an “ambush robbery” in southwest Houston in June 2008 which left Huong Thien Nguyen dead and her sister critically wounded. The alleged evidence against Green is a palm print, an eyewitness identification, and a jailhouse informant—all of which are flawed according to Green’s attorneys, Richard Burr, John “Casey” Keirnan, and Robert Loper. The attorneys have argued in extensive pretrial motions and briefs that their client is innocent, and because the Texas death penalty process is so broken in that it creates a high risk of innocent people being put to death, their client cannot receive a fair trial.

(more…)

September 28, 2010

ACTUAL INNOCENCE IN POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS

Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:30 am

Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions Recommends Expanded Post-Conviction DNA Testing, Habeas Corpus Based on Changing Science

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

U.S. District Court Judge William T. Moore, Jr., who presides in the Southern District of Georgia, recently observed in the death penalty case of Troy Davis (here and here) that only one state of the 35 states that have the death penalty does not have any post-conviction avenue for inmates to either secure or offer evidence of innocence. That lone state is Oklahoma. Altogether, 47 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes which provide varying degrees of access to remedies to establish innocence in a post-conviction setting. Massachusetts, Alaska, and Oklahoma are the only three hold-out states which have elected not to enact reform legislation in the critical area of establishing “actual innocence” despite the ever-increasing number of DNA exonerations.

Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides inmates claiming actual innocence with an avenue to procure DNA testing. Article 64.01 permits an inmate to motion for DNA testing of evidence containing biological material. The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit outlining the facts supporting the motion. The motion can secure DNA testing only of evidence that was in possession of the state during the trial of the offense for which he was convicted, provided the following conditions are met: 1) the evidence was not subjected to DNA testing because such testing was not available; 2) DNA testing was available but was not technologically capable of producing probative results; or 3) DNA technology has improved with newer testing techniques which provide more accurate results.

Recently the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions (“Panel”) pointed out that Texas inmates who make claims of being wrongfully convicted not related to DNA evidence—such as improper ballistics analysis, faulty arson forensic evidence, or staged dog scent evidence—must petition the courts through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant Art. 1107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in non-capital cases and Art. 11.071 in death penalty cases.

The burden facing a defendant in a habeas proceeding trying to establish “actual innocence” has been historically high because the U.S. Supreme Court has never definitively recognized what is called a “freestanding” actual innocence claim in habeas proceedings. Just last year the Court in case of District Attorney’s Office of the Third Judicial District v. Osborne held that the “actual innocence claim” issue was an “open question.” Yet just two months later the Court ordered a hearing in the case of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis on the issue of “actual innocence,” saying it would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to execute an innocent man as Davis has claimed to be. Against this conflicting constitutional backdrop, Judge Moore conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing and in August issued a comprehensive ruling that Davis had failed to establish his “actual innocence” test by “clear and convincing evidence”—the standard of evidence the federal judge said should be applied in such claims.

(more…)

March 9, 2010

TEXAS DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Filed under: Death Penalty Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 12:37 am

Judge Acknowledges Innocent People Have Likely been Executed

Harris County Criminal District Court Judge Kevin Fine on Thursday, March 4, 2010, created a tsunami of controversy in the Texas legal community when he reportedly made a comment that he was declaring the state’s death penalty unconstitutional. The comment was made during a hearing on a motion filed by defense attorneys in the case of John Edward Green Jr. who is facing a capital murder charge. What Judge Fine actually did was to declare Article 37.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure unconstitutional which is the statute that outlines the procedures for imposing the death sentence in this state.

“Are you willing to have your brother, your father, your mother be the sacrificial lamb, to be the innocent person executed so that we can have a death penalty, so that we can execute those who are deserving of the death penalty?” Judge Fine mused from the bench. “I don’t think society’s mindset is that way now.”

The reaction to Judge Fine’s comment/ruling was immediate and volatile. Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos issued a statement respectfully disagreeing with the ruling: “We respectfully, but vigorously, disagree with the trial judge’s ruling, as it has no basis in law or fact. Words are inadequate to describe the Office’s disappointment and dismay with the ruling; sadly it will delay justice for the victims and their families. We will pursue all [appeal] remedies.”

But Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott were not so understanding in their reactions to Judge Fine’s ruling. Abbott called the decision “an act of unabashed judicial activism.”

(more…)

October 30, 2009

TEXAS ATTORNEY DISCREDITS SPIRIT OF LEGAL PROFESSION

Filed under: Homicide Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 11:09 pm

Flagrant Exhibit of Unprofessionalism, Disloyalty to Executed Client Adds to Nationwide Scrutiny of Willingham Execution

By Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

We’re not in the habit of criticizing fellow criminal defense attorneys, but, and unfortunately, we feel compelled to discuss the antics of Mr. David Martin, of Corsicana, Texas, recently displayed on nationwide television. Martin was Cameron Todd Willingham’s defense attorney during Willingham’s August 1992 capital murder trial. Willingham had been charged with intentionally setting fire to his Corsicana, Texas house in December 1991 which killed his three small children. Martin was appointed to defend Willingham who maintained from the outset that he was innocent of starting the fire that killed the three children.

The evidence presented at Willingham’s is listed below:

1. State arson experts testified to the effect that Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floors throughout his house and intentionally set it ablaze which resulted in the death of his three children (twin girls aged 1 and a third daughter aged 2) by acute carbon monoxide due to smoke inhalation.
2. An expert witness specifically testified the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, and that this can only occur when an accelerant has been purposely used.
3. Neighbors testified that Willingham “crouched down” in the front yard as the house began to smolder and refused to heed the neighbors’ pleas for him to make some effort to recuse the children.
4. Neighbors also testified that when the fire “blew out” windows in the house, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire so that it would not be damaged.
5. A firefighter at the scene testified that Willingham was upset because his dart board had been burned in the fire.
6. Another neighbor testified that the morning after the fire, Christmas Eve, Willingham and his wife pored through the fire debris while laughing and playing loud music.
7. Witnesses testified that Willingham did not display any grief for the loss of his children either at the fire scene or at the hospital later that night.
8. A “jailhouse snitch” testified that Willingham told him that he killed his children to cover-up prior abuse of them. 1/

Absent the testimony of the state’s fire experts, there was no real evidence that Willingham committed the crime. It was the state’s expert arson testimony that convicted Willingham of capital murder and resulted in the death penalty being imposed.

As Willingham’s state and federal appeal remedies drew to a close in November 2003, his family contacted a prominent, Cambridge-educated fire scientist from Austin, Texas named Gerald Hurst. The family persuaded this expert to examine the state’s arson evidence to determine if it was reliable. Skeptical at the outset, Hurst nonetheless undertook the pro bono task of reviewing the Willingham evidence. He was astonished not only by the evidence relied upon by the state experts but the procedures they utilized to draw the conclusions they presented to the jury; namely, that the fire had been intentionally set and Willingham was the only person capable of setting it. (more…)

October 5, 2009

TEXAS GOV RICK PERRY IMPEDES INQUIRY ABOUT WHETHER TEXAS EXECUTED AN INNOCENT MAN

Filed under: Death Penalty Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 11:46 am

Governor’s abrupt Dismissal of Chairman, Two Members of Texas Forensic Science Commission on Eve of Hearing Smacks of Political Cover-up

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

It is one thing for a governor to have possibly presided over the execution of an innocent man but quite another for that governor to effectively shut down an official investigation into whether the forensic evidence used convict the man was reliable.

That’s precisely what Texas Gov. Rick Perry did on September 30, 2009 when he abruptly replaced three members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission two days before the commission was scheduled to hear testimony from a renowned forensic expert who has cast serious doubts on the forensic evidence that sent Cameron Todd Willingham to his death on February 17, 2004 under Perry’s watch.

The governor has denied any ulterior personal or political motives for the firing of commission chairman Sam Bassett, an Austin attorney, and two other commission members. Bassett was instrumental earlier this year in securing the services the highly touted Maryland fire scientist and expert named Craig Beyler. The commission charged Beyler with the very specific task of determining whether the forensic evidence used to convict Willingham was reliable and satisfied nationally recognized scientific standards for the use of such evidence in arson cases. Beyler was not charged with the task of making a determination of whether or not Willingham was actually innocent.

“He [Beyler] appears to be one of the pre-eminent people in the fire and arson investigation field,” Bassett was quoted as saying in a January 27, 2009 Chicago Tribune article. (more…)

Older Posts »

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