CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

July 16, 2011

OUR TAKE ON THE CASEY ANTHONY VERDICT

Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: , , — johntfloyd @ 4:13 pm

Lack of Evidence and Reasonable Doubts Lead to Acquittal

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Now that Casey Anthony has been acquitted on the most serious charges resulting from the death of her young daughter, Caylee, and is scheduled for release next week, virtually every media pundit, along with their side-kick “expert” attorneys has had their say about the case.  And now, after one of the jurors chose to flee the state of Florida in fear of retaliation, we also feel compelled to add a few comments—both about the verdict and the conduct of those expert attorneys leading up to and subsequent to the verdict.

It has been said that “A ‘not guilty’ verdict is the final disposition of a case from which, under normal circumstances, there is no review. Thus in this sense, it is the juries of this nation which finally define the laws. This places the power of the jury, in this respect, above that of the supreme court of the nation.”  In this light, we must all remember Casey Anthony has been acquitted by a jury of her peers, who heard all the evidence in a court of law, and is not guilty, no matter what the pundits continue to scream.

On July 15, 2008 Casey Anthony told her mother, Cindy, that her two-year-old daughter Caylee had been missing for 31 days. Cindy called 911. The following day Casey Anthony was arrested for child neglect. Law enforcement and private searches were launched in an effort to find Caylee. On October 14, 2008, with Caylee still missing, Casey Anthony was indicted for capital murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter, and four counts of lying to law enforcement officials. On December 11, 2008, the partial remains of Caylee were discovered a half mile from the Anthony residence. Six months after her arrest, April 13, 2009, Orange County prosecutors in Orlando announced they would seek the death penalty.

The Anthony case probably would not have become a national media sensation had HLN’s controversial talk show host Nancy Grace not leaped on the story like a starving dog on a bone. Nancy Grace is Nancy Grace, and she is probably the only talk show host who can regularly make Glenn Beck look like an intellectual giant. The former prosecutor does what most former prosecutors do when given a media outlet after they leave the adversarial trial system: she tries to convince the jury of public opinion that anyone arrested and indicted for a highly-publicized or controversial crime is guilty. It’s a new form of lynching—not with a rope but with cable news outlets.

(more…)

February 11, 2011

THE PURPOSE OF REASONABLE DOUBT IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

Filed under: Drug Defense Attorney — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:09 pm

Prosecutorial, Police Misconduct Lead to Wrongful Conviction Unsupported by Evidence

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In a recent post we discussed both the history and role of reasonable doubt in criminal trials. We noted and criticized the fact that Texas judges in criminal trials do not, per Texas Court of Criminal Appeals mandate, have to give jurors any instruction as to what constitutes “reasonable doubt.” This, we believe, is one of several reasons why Texas leads the nation in the wrongful conviction of innocent people.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a drug conviction of a Texas resident and had an opportunity in the process to explain why reasonable doubt is so critical in ensuring the constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. The case involved Maria Aide Delgado who was convicted in federal court of one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and one count of conspiracy to commit the same offense. The Delgado case also illustrates a subject matter we have discussed in other posts: prosecutorial misconduct (here and here).

In September 2006 federal customs officers received a tip from undercover informant that Delgado had marijuana in a tractor trailer truck parked at her rural residence in Weslaco, Texas. Delgado, the sole owner and operator of T.J. Trucking, gave the officers “consent” to search after which they discovered 230 kilograms of marijuana in the sleeper cab of the locked semi-trailer truck which was parked inside her fence. Delgado told the officers she didn’t know anything about the marijuana or how it got in the truck; that her company hired drivers to operate the semi-trailer to haul Mexican produce from Laredo to destinations throughout the United States. She also informed the officers that she did not drive or accompany the truck on its long hauls, and that the bulk of her business was conducted by telephone from her residence. The officers seized her cell phone, computer, bank records, and personal papers—none of which disclosed any evidence of illegal drug activity.

Bartolome Vasquez was a legal Mexican resident who worked as a produce broker and shipper in Laredo. He also moonlighted as a paid government informant. He knew Delgado, having done business with her arranging produce shipments the four years prior to 2006. He told his U.S. Customs handlers that he spoke with Delgado at least four times a month either in person or over the telephone. He told the handlers he considered her a “legitimate trucking business operator” until September 2006 when she offered him $10,000 to haul a load of marijuana mixed with produce to North Carolina. Vasquez said he turned down the offer and immediately reported it to his Customs handlers. Since they had previously paid him $1300 for drug smuggling related information, he naturally expected a reward for the Delgado information—and, as a matter of fact, he did receive $7,500 for that information.

(more…)

January 30, 2011

WHAT IS REASONABLE DOUBT?

Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 2:41 pm

Another Tool for Preventing Wrongful Convictions:  Texas Needs a Statutory Definition of Reasonable Doubt

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Four decades ago in the case of In re Winship the United States Supreme Court firmly established that, as a matter of due process, a person charged with a criminal offense, including a juvenile as in Winship, can be found guilty only after the prosecution has proven every element of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Supreme Court dated the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” in American jurisprudence to 1798, some eleven years after our Constitution was adopted. Thus, beyond a reasonable doubt has been the degree of persuasion necessary in criminal cases since the early founding of our nation. It has become the very bedrock of our criminal jurisprudence. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter put it in 1952 in Leland v. Oregon: “ … it is the duty of the Government to establish  … guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This notion – basic in our law and rightly one of the boasts of a free society – is a requirement and a safeguard of due process of law in the historical, procedural content of ‘due process.’”

The Supreme Court in Winship had one basic objective: it wanted to establish then, and for all ages to come, that the standard or proof “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” as the essence of criminal jurisprudence in our nation. This was evidenced by the court’s unmistakable and quite compelling language in that decision:

“The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has this vital role in our criminal procedure for cogent reasons. The accused during a criminal prosecution has at stake interests of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his liberty upon conviction and because of the certainty that he would be stigmatized by the conviction. Accordingly, a society that values the good name and freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime when there is reasonable doubt about his guilt. As we [have] said … ‘there is always in litigation a margin for error, representing error in factfinding, which both parties must take into account. Where one party has at stake an interest of transcending value – as a criminal defendant his liberty – this margin of error is reduced as to him by the process of placing on the other party the burden of … persuading the factfinder at the conclusion of the trial of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of … convincing the factfinder of his guilt.’ To this end, the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable, for it ‘impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude of the facts in issue’ …

“Moreover, use of the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable to command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law. It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs have confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty.

(more…)

January 8, 2009

STANDARDS OF PROOF

Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: , , — johntfloyd @ 7:28 pm

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…)

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