John T. Floyd Law Firm
Board Certified Houston Criminal Lawyer
“Serious Criminal Defense Throughout Texas”
Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist
Experienced Criminal Trial Lawyer
Federal And State Criminal Defense
Phone # (713) 224-0101
Toll Free 1-866-374-1327
E-mail jfloyd@JohnTFloyd.com
Top Lawyers: Criminal Defense - 2008, 2009, 2010 HTexas
POST-CONVICTION ISSUES
![[Valid RSS]](images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
March 26, 2012
TECHNOLOGY INVADES PERSONAL PRIVACY
U.S. v. Jones: Government’s Attachment of GPS to Personal Vehicle Constitutes a Search under 4th Amendment
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
In a split but unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme this past January 23rd in United States v. Jones staved off yet another disconcerting attempt by our Government to invade and ultimately destroy personal privacy. It is a concern we have discussed in the past (here). That’s why we are so pleased that the Supreme Court—at least on this issue—unanimously, although for different reasons, came down strong with a ruling that privacy trumps technology. more...
January 23, 2011
TWO CONFESSIONS: DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS
Confessions after Illegal Search Should be Suppressed if Influenced by Underlying Illegality, Violation of Forth Amendment
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
There are primarily two types of unlawful confessions: custodial confessions obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and confessions obtained as products of an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had a recent opportunity in United States v. Shetler to address the latter. more...
September 30, 2011
THE CRIMINAL TRIAL: AN ENDANGERED SPECIES?
Federal Judge Says Threat of Mandatory Sentences Used as “Chip” to Coerce Pleas
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
John L. Kane, Jr. is the Senior Judge of the United States District Court in Denver. This prominent jurist recently told the New York Times that criminal defendants are being ”coerced” into pleading guilty with threats of a harsher sentences should they decide to go to trial. “How many times is a mandatory sentence used as a chip in order to coerce a plea? They don’t keep records,” Judge Kane told the newspaper. “That’s what the public doesn’t see, and where the statistics become meaningless.” Judge Kane said that prosecutors “have grown more powerful than judges” and the end result is that “we hardly have trials anymore.” more...
July 26, 2011
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CRACK/POWDER COCAINE’S 713 AMENDMENT
Federal Crack Sentence Reductions: Defendants Sentenced Pursuant to 11(c)(1)(C) Agreements Eligible for 3582(c)(2) Relief
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
In 2007 the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued a retroactive amendment, Amendment 713, to the Sentencing Guidelines designed to eliminate the sentencing disparities in crack cocaine and powder cocaine cases. The amendment became effective in March 2008, and promptly triggered an outbreak of conflicting appellate court decisions, prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene on several occasions and to restore judicial order (here and here). This past term the Court was once again was forced to confront another issue spun off by Amendment 713: whether the amendment could be retroactively applied in cases where a defendant entered into a plea agreement with the Government for a specific sentence. The Court, in Freeman v. United States, answered that question in the affirmative, although in a plurality decision. more...
July 12, 2011
BULLCOMING v. NEW MEXICO: A DWI CASE WITH IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS
DWI Forensic Laboratory Reports are “Testimonial” for Confrontation Clause Purposes
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
It is not often that a DWI case will find itself in the trenches of constitutional law before the Supreme Court of the United States. But that’s precisely what happened last month when the high court handed down Bullcoming v. New Mexico. The Donald Bullcoming case began in 2005 with a set of background facts similar to many other DWI cases. Bullcoming’s vehicle rammed into the rear of a pickup truck at an intersection in Farmington, New Mexico. The pickup’s driver got out of his truck to exchange insurance information with Bullcoming, but upon noticing that Bullcoming’s eyes were bloodshot and he smelled of alcohol, the pickup’s driver instructed his wife to call the police. more...
June 17, 2011
MILITARIZED POLICE “NO KNOCK” SEARCHES KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE
Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Expanding “No Knock” Powers of the Police and Insulating Law Enforcement Abuses Allow a Growing Police State
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
We are no fans of “no knock” searches by the police, especially those launched by militarized SWAT units. We made this clear after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding police powers to conduct such searches (here). We don’t like them because they kill innocent people indiscriminately. We have permitted our law enforcement agencies to become so militarized that “no knock” searches increased from 3,000 in 1981 to 50,000 in 2005, according to Eastern University of Kentucky criminologist Paul Kraska, and have resulted in the deaths of 40 innocent people during that time, according to the Washington-based Cato Institute. Peter Guither, with Drug War Rant, places the number of innocents killed in “no knock” searches at 42. more...
May 21, 2011
FOURTH AMENDMENT CURTAILED ONCE AGAIN
Kentucky V. King: Warrantless Entry into Residence Reasonable When Exigent Circumstances Exist That Were Not Created By Police
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Billy Sinclair
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has historically protected Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officials. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment has two long recognized clauses: First, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures; and, second, the requirement that probable cause be established before a search warrant is issued. There are “exigent circumstances” to these two constitutional requirements which allows law enforcement officials to conduct warrantless searches when 1) there is possible imminent destruction of evidence; 2) a real threat to the safety of the general public or law enforcement officials exist; 3) the police are in “hot pursuit” of a suspect; or 4) there is a likelihood that a suspect will flee before law enforcement can obtain a warrant. more...
April 9, 2011
The Paradox that is The War on Drugs
While Some Politicians Question Cost Of Incarcerating Drug Offenders, Big Money and Bigger Forfeitures Keeps Texas Tough On Drug Crime
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
An increasing number of states have abandoned the traditional notion that the best way to combat drug use and trafficking is through the costly practice of extended incarceration. The Wall Street Journal last month reported that Kentucky joined the ranks of South Carolina, Colorado and New York to enact laws that shift spending into less expensive and more effective rehabilitation and intensive drug testing programs. Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are currently considering bills that would reduce drug penalties and direct some drug defendants into treatment programs. more...
March 11, 2011
DRUG CHECKPOINTS AND THEIR AFTERMATH
Drug Mules/Smugglers Beware: Permanent Border Patrol Checkpoints in Texas Seize Tons of Drugs, Marijuana, Illustrate Inhumanity of Drug Laws
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
There are many problems with mandatory minimum sentencing as we have discussed in previous blogs, but the following is just one real life example. He is a Mexican national, a legal resident in this country. He is a long haul truck driver. He has a family to support. He is approached by people who want him to haul a legal shipment of produce. He is told contraband will be concealed in the produce. But he is not told what the contraband is. He is paid one thousand dollars to make the delivery. It will help pay the bills, particularly the medical bills for one chronically ill child. more...
March 8, 2011
5C1.2: “SAFETY VALVE”: ANOTHER FAILED SENTENCING REFORM EFFORT
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Mandatory Minimums, Safety Valve Encourage Snitches, Promote False Testimony, Prevent Just Sentences
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Anytime a new penal statute uses the term “reform” you can take to it the bank that the result will produce just the opposite; that its objective to correct a perceived and politically charged threat will, more than likely than not, harvest a new crop of worse injustices.
[ Back to top ]
