Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Jury selection has begun in the high profile criminal case against Dr. Conrad Murray, the physician charged with involuntary manslaughter in the drug overdose and death of Michael Jackson. This comes the day after a California Court of Appeals denied Murray’s request to have the jury sequestered in what will assuredly be intense media coverage and “expert” speculation.
Defense attorney Edward Chernoff, who is defending Dr. Conrad Murray on an involuntary manslaughter charge in connection with Michael Jackson’s drug overdose death in 2009, wanted to call a number of witnesses to testify about Jackson’s 2005 acquittal on child molestation charges. One of the witnesses was a police detective who searched Jackson’s Neverland home in Santa Barbara County in 2003 where drugs, including Demerol, were found. Chernoff wanted to use the detective and a Dr. Arnold Klein, a dermatologist who gave Jackson Demerol, to show that the famous pop singer was addicted to prescription drugs.
According to a report in the Washington Post, lead prosecutor David Walgren lamented that Dr. Murray’s defense team was trying to “character assassinate” the victim. “The people are concerned about this trial deteriorating into an attack on Michael Jackson,” Walgren was quoted by the Post.
The courtroom indignation of prosecutor Walgren is nothing short of pure hypocrisy. Prosecutors in Jackson’s 2005 trial sought, and secured, approval from Judge Rodney Melville to present testimony concerning Jackson’s prior molestation of five boys, ages 10 to 13. It was okay, from a prosecutorial point of view, to “character assassinate” Jackson as a serial pedophile in 2005 but somehow it is not okay to allow Chernoff to show the singer was a drug addict/pedophile.
(more…)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas Finds Lawyer’s Careful and Repeated Objections did not Preserve Error
By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Criminal trials are governed by strict rules of evidence and procedures. It is the duty of a defense attorney to not only know but understand these rules and procedures precisely. We have written several times in the past about the harm caused by a defense attorney’s inadvertent failure to make specific, timely and properly lodged objections during the course of a criminal trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently delivered that same unreasonable message once again and in no uncertain terms.
The case involved Luis Pena who, in 1998, was charged with possession of marijuana seized during a traffic stop. He was put on trial in 2003. His attorney had learned that the evidence in the case had been destroyed in 2000. The attorney also learned through a thorough investigation that all of the records and documents associated with the lab report of the Texas Department of Public Safety concerning the marijuana had been lost. So prior to trial the attorney diligently filed a motion for an independent lab analysis of the seized marijuana and moved to suppress the DPS lab results. These motions were denied by the trial court.
Not to be deterred, Pena’s attorney lodged general evidence-custody objections based on the laws of Texas, the Texas Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The trial judge denied these objections, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents that require a state criminal defendant to not only show that the lost or destroyed evidence was both material and favorable to his defense but that the state act in bad faith when it lost or destroyed the evidence.
During Pena’s trial, the prosecution called a DPS chemist to testify about the lab test results. Pena’s attorney not only properly objected but requested that he be allowed to question the chemist outside of the jury’s presence to assess his qualifications and to determine the admissibility of the test results. The trial judge granted the attorney’s request, and after both sides had an opportunity to question the chemist about the destruction of the evidence, the judge personally questioned the chemist to determine if DPS had acted in bad faith when it destroyed the evidence. The judge concluded the law enforcement agency had not only acted in bad faith but that the destroyed evidence was not favorable to Pena. (more…)
Reasonable Doubt; Foundation of a Free Society
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair
Every one has heard of the phrase “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” But there are three primary standards of proof: preponderance of evidence; clear and convincing evidence; and reasonable doubt. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 1990) provides the definitions of each in order of importance:
Preponderance of the Evidence: the greater weight of evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or probably certain. This is a greater burden than preponderance of the evidence, the standard applied in most civil trials, but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the normal in criminal trials.
Reasonable doubt: The doubt that prevents one from being firmly convinced of a defendant’s guilt, or the belief that there is a real possibility that the defendant is not guilty. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the standard used by a jury to determine whether a criminal defendant is guilty. In determining whether guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must begin with the presumption that the defendant is innocent.
(more…)
Subscribe
