CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

May 12, 2009

JUDGE SAMUEL KENT: SHOULD HE BE IMPEACHED?

Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:47 pm

SHOULD HE CONTINUE TO RECEIVE HIS PENSION?

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

These two questions have stirred considerable debate in both the legal community and general public in south Texas. Normally it is not a subject that would provoke a response by us. But the tenor of those demanding the impeachment of Judge Kent and those who have said he should not receive his pension have caused us some concern. Now that the federal judge has sentenced to 33 months in prison, we decided to weigh in on these two important questions.

The impeachment question is the most difficult one to address. Normally we would say that Judge Kent should be impeached because he was convicted of a serious felony. But the current congressional view of when a federal judge should be impeached gives us pause for concern.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee was head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under the George W. Bush administration before the former president rewarded Bybee with a life time federal judgeship appointment. Judge Bybee was the top Justice Department official who signed the legal memorandums authorizing the CIA to use torture techniques such as water boarding, wall-slamming and sleep deprivation during the interrogation of “terror suspects” in the wake of 9/11. Judge Bybee’s conduct at the time violated clearly established international law, existing federal law, and America’s longstanding policies for the treatment of captured “enemies of war.”

A significant number of organizations and media outlets have begun pushing for either the resignation or impeachment of Judge Bybee. For example, The New York Times in a recent editorial said that Judge Bybee’s role in the torture approval process “made it clear that [he] was not fit to make judgments about the law and the Constitution.” (more…)

April 11, 2009

CHILD PORN: AN INCREASING PROBLEM IN ALL SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY

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…)

March 31, 2009

A TEXAS BIGAMY DEFENSE

The Constitutional Implications of Lawrence v. Texas on the Texas Bigamy Statute

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

The State of Texas will probably experience of series of bigamy trials stemming from the mass arrests made in the “infamous FLDS case” last year. The John T. Floyd Law Firm has been asked on a number of cases if there is a legitimate constitutional challenge to the Texas bigamy statute. See: Tex. Penal Code, § 25.01.

This answer to this question must necessarily begin with an analysis of a 2006 decision by the Utah Supreme Court, which rejected a litany of constitutional challenges to that state’s bigamy statute, and compared to the Texas statute. See: Utah v. Holm, 137 P.3d 726 (UT 2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1371, 167 L.Ed.2d 159 (2007).

Rodney Hans Holm was convicted in Utah for bigamy and unlawful sexual conduct of a minor. He was legally married to Suzie Stubbs in 1986. As a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), he participated in a “religious marriage ceremony” with Wendy Holm. At age thirty-two, Holm participated in yet another “religious marriage ceremony” with the sister of Suzie Stubbs, sixteen-year-old Ruth Stubbs. Ruth moved into Holm’s house where Suzie, Wendy, and their children already resided. By the time Ruth turned eighteen, she had conceived two children with Holm. Id., at 730.

Holm was arrested, charged with three counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and charged with one count of bigamy. The jury returned a guilty verdict on each of the charges, and Holm was sentenced to five years on each conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently, and fined $3,000.00. The sentences and fine were suspended conditioned on three years probation, one year in the county jail with work release, and two hundred hours of community service. Id., at 731-32. (more…)

February 26, 2009

BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK FOR JUDGES IN SOUTH TEXAS

Judges Reap What They Sowed

By Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

There may be no Hero to the rescue in this dark drama hanging over the state and federal judiciaries in South Texas. The clouds in the horizon are as ominous as those that preceded Hurricane Ike last September. A sitting federal judge, the Honorable Samuel Kent who formerly oversaw maritime law cases for the past seventeen years in Galveston, was facing trial in a Houston federal district court on federal sex crime charges. The local media was reporting that attorneys who regularly practiced before Judge Kent were following the case with utter amazement and, we suspect, a near morbid fascination.

According to media reports, Judge Kent dominated proceedings before him with a harsh gavel and was known for what the Houston Chronicle called “biting written opinions.” Life indeed has a peculiar knack for turning things topsy-turvy. So it was with Judge Kent who found himself facing trial on five sexual abuse charges involving two former employees and one charge of lying to a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judicial commission assigned to investigate the sexual abuse allegations.

Represented by the preeminent Houston criminal defense attorney Dick DeGuerin, Judge Kent had been vociferous in his protestations of innocence during pre-trial court proceedings. Through a number of pre-trial pleadings, DeGuerin indicated a series of seemingly conflicting defenses: 1) the employees consented, 2) the judge suffers from erectile dysfunction, and 3) the judge is so consumed by such a powerful ego that he may not have been able to discern if the employees actually consented to alleged sexual advances he made towards them.

A recent Chronicle article about the Kent case quoted Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh expert on federal judicial discipline: “This is unprecedented,” Hellman said, pointing out that a few other federal judges have faced criminal trials involving “money and corruption” issues but none for sex offenses. (more…)

February 14, 2009

OBJECTIONS, BOLSTERING, AND APPELLATE REVIEW

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…)

January 25, 2009

CSAAS IN TEXAS CRIMINAL TRIALS

Rule 702 Expert Testimony v. Bolstering, Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome

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

In 1983, Roland Summit in a published paper coined the phrase “Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome” (CSAAS). See: 7 Child Abuse and Neglect 177 (1983).Summit’s syndrome set forth five specific characteristics children may exhibit following sexual abuse. Summit intended that CSAAS be utilized by law enforcement and child protective services investigators, as well as clinicians, to explain the coping behavior of children sexually abused by adults. He did not intend for CSAAS to be used, as it has been in some states, as a diagnostic tool to tell juries in criminal trials that sexual abuse has in fact occurred. The five CSAAS characteristics are listed below:

Secrecy – The child is told by adult that the sexual abuse must be kept secret. Secrecy is generally accomplished through threats such as “daddy will go to jail;” “momma will not believe you and will get angry;” or “I’ll kill you and the rest of the family.” Secrecy can also be achieved through positive reinforcement such as “this is our special secret”; or “you must not tell anyone because they won’t understand.”

Helplessness – Sexual abuse instills fear and powerlessness in a child. They feel helpless to stop the abuse. The abuse usually comes from a power figure (a father, uncle, or priest) that make the child feel too vulnerable to stop it.

Accommodation – The demand for secrecy by the abuser and the child’s sense of helplessness can make the child feel trapped in a hopeless situation. She/he, therefore, may create a need to accommodate the abuse which can lead to psychological torment that the victim is somehow the “bad person” who created the abuse.

Delayed Disclosure – More commonly known in the Texas legal system as “delayed outcry,” the child may not disclose the sexual abuse for years because of fear of personal harm, or because of the perceived harm it could cause her/his family, or because of fear that no one will believe her/him. This may cause the child to act out in rage or anger because she/he feels that no one in authority has protected her/him. This can delay the disclosure of abuse for years until there is a period of personal crises in the child’s life or crises within the family unit.

Retraction – Disclosure inevitably creates turmoil. The child may be subjected to disbelief by the outside world, including law enforcement. Shame and humiliation become inevitable psychological byproducts of the disclosure. “The world knows,” the child thinks. And when the “world” does not truly support the child’s disclosure, she/her may retract the sexual abuse allegation. (more…)

January 14, 2009

SAME CLIENT: ANOTHER TRIAL, ANOTHER ACQUITTAL

Client Falsely Accused of Child Sexual Abuse Wins Second Acquittal Against Determined Public Integrity Unit Prosecutor

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In early 2008 the Harris County District Attorney’s Office launched an investigation into alleged sexual abuse of inmates housed at a county detention facility. It is unclear exactly what prompted the inquiry, but a reasonable assumption can be made that the decision was influenced by the massive media and legislative attention given to evidence uncovered in 2007 by the Texas Rangers about widespread sexual abuse of inmates by staff in the state’s juvenile detention facilities.

Whatever the reason, a former Harris County detention facility officer was indicted between April and July of last year on multiple counts of sexual abuse of three female inmates during the time they were housed at the detention center in 2000. The former corrections officer, who had since become a deputy constable, retained the John T. Floyd Law Firm to represent him on the charges.

Two of the inmates were between 10 and 11 years of age and one was 13 or 14 years of age at the time of the alleged abuse [one instance of alleged sexual intercourse and numerous instances of inappropriate touching]. The teenage victim had already given birth to one of her six illegitimate children and was pregnant with the second at the time of the alleged abuse. All three victims had long histories of lying (even by their own admissions), drug use, stealing, and serious psychological disorders. The sexual abuse allegations by one of the former inmates against our client were thoroughly investigated in 2000 by detention center staff, the Houston Police Department and the District Attorney’s Office. The three law enforcement agencies determined the allegations were not credible, and, in fact, the alleged victim ultimately recanted the allegation, admitting that she had lied against our client in this particular instance and other instances just to “get him in trouble.”

Nonetheless, the District Attorney’s Office in 2008 determined that this thoroughly investigated and recanted sexual abuse allegation, as well as the other similar allegations of sexual abuse leveled against our client in 2000, warranted criminal prosecution. Our client bravely stood trial in September 2008 on the most serious sexual abuse allegation [aggravated sexual assault of a child]. The victim, who is now an adult with a substantial criminal history, testified about the alleged sexual assault. The assistant district attorney prosecuting the case made a serious tactical blunder: she relied almost exclusively on the victim’s testimony which, in Texas, is sufficient alone to sustain a criminal conviction in sexual assault cases involving minors. (more…)

October 2, 2008

CYBERSEX CONVERSATIONS NOT A CRIME?

“Role Playing” in Cybersex Conversations Could be a Legitimate Defense in § 2422(b) Internet Solicitation Cases

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

18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) prohibits the use of a computer by an adult to send messages on the Internet to “persuade and entice” a person under 18 years of age to engage in sexual activity that constitutes a criminal offense.

On December 21, 2006 Dennis Joseph was convicted of violating § 2422(b) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and sentenced to a term of 97 months in a federal prison. On September 9, 2008 the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reversed the conviction based on an erroneous instruction the trial judge gave to the jury. See: United States v. Joseph, ____ F.3d _____ (2nd Cir. 2008) [Slip Opinion No. 06-5911-CR]. The Second Circuit outlined the facts of the case as follows:

“Joseph is 40 years old, married, and has a six-year-old child. In August 2005, he was arrested for using the Internet to solicit a person he believed to be a minor to engage in sexual activity … After a seven-day trial in April 2006, a mistrial was declared when the jury was unable to reach a verdict.

“The evidence at the retrial included the following. In July, 2005, Joseph visited an Internet chat room called ‘I Love Older Men,’ where he initiated a conversation with an individual with the screen name ‘Teen2Hot4U,’ who purported to be a 13-year-old girl named ‘Lorie.’ ‘Teen2Hot4U’ was in fact Stephanie Good, a 55-year-old woman who spends 20 to 50 hours a week surfing the Internet for those she believes to be sexual predators and reporting her finds to the FBI. (more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

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