Blog
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.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recognized Summit’s CSAAS in 1990 in Duckett v. State, 797 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990), disapproved on other grounds by Cohn v. State, 849 S.W.2d 817, 819 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). Duckett was convicted of indecency with a child and sentenced to 80 years in prison based on two prior felony convictions. Id., at 907. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals in 1988 had reversed Duckett’s conviction on grounds that the trial court had improperly permitted an “expert witness” employed by the Department of Human Services to testify about the “dynamics of intrafamily child sexual abuse.” Id. The court of appeals, in an unpublished decision, concluded that the opinions of the “expert” were not admissible under Rule 702 of the Texas Rules of Evidence and the trial court had abused its discretion by allowing the testimony. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the trial court had in fact abused its discretion by admitting the testimony. Id.
The victim in the Duckett case was the defendant’s six and one-half year old niece who testified the sexual abuse first began in the family bathroom when her uncle entered, removed her clothes, and rubbed her genitalia with his hands and penis. Duckett’s defense attorney was able to establish on cross examination serious discrepancies in the child’s testimony, including the fact that the child had named two other family member as having committed the abuse. The court of criminal appeals, however, concluded that the victim’s trial testimony was essentially “clear in naming [Duckett] as the perpetrator, but she did have some difficulty in remembering certain facts or events about which she had made statements during the earlier video session.” Id.
The victim’s mother testified that she took the child to a doctor after the child complained of itching and irritation of the vagina. The doctor testified at trial that his general and pediatric pelvic examination revealed nothing out of the ordinary and that the child had not mentioned to him anything about being sexually molested. Id., at 908.
To counter the potentially damaging impeachment testimony from the doctor, “the State called John Brogden, a certified social worker and advanced clinical practitioner who holds a certificate as an instructor with the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer’s Standards and Education in the area of child sexual abuse investigation.
Brogden testified that children who are sexually abused almost always go through certain phases over the period of time of abuse and in its aftermath. After discussing each phase or ‘element’, Brogden then proceeded to apply these abstract elements to the particulars of the instant case. Establishing that the expert had heard the various witnesses testify, had read the police reports and viewed the videotaped interview taken with the complainant, Brogden was asked whether he ‘found any of these elements in this case?’
Over defense objection that allowing such testimony would constitute an invasion of the province of the jury, bolstering the State’s witness and was both prejudicial and immaterial to the case, Brogden was permitted to opine he found every element existing in the case. Questions thereafter focused first on the individual element or phase in terms of manifestations in general, and second, specific questions regarding manifestations illustrating the particular phase in the case at bar.
He was asked to give his opinion why abuse victims in general would fail to report improper sexual advances, and testified children often indirectly report abuse by way of complaining of physical ailments in the area of the genitalia. The State then questioned Brogden specifically as to whether he had ‘seen some manifestation of that (indirect report) in this case?’ Again overruling the same objection as made previously by the defense, the trial court allowed the witness to respond in the affirmative and to further specify S.S.’s complaints of itching and irritation as evidence demonstrating her manifestation of this element or phase.
Element by element and over objection, the State was allowed to question Brogden first in general terms and then solicit his opinion how each element was manifested by specific facts in the instant case. In particular, Brogden was questioned why the complainant would change her recollection of the events between the time of the offense and trial, and whether it was unusual not to discover some physical manifestation of trauma around the genital area. He responded to the first question by stating that forgetfulness is part of the repression phase. To the latter query, Brogden cited certain statistical studies showing in over 80% of child molestation cases, there is no physical evidence of assault. In sum, the witness was permitted not only to identify the six elements or phases but also was allowed to testify how specific facts fit within each abstract element. He was not asked and did not volunteer an opinion whether the complainant was in fact telling the truth. He did explain why children in general would act in a manner consistent with that of S.S.” Id., at 908-09.
The Duckett court pointed out that the “elements” discussed by Brogden were Summit’s five characteristics in CSAAS. The following states, like Duckett, have recognized Summit’s CSAAS:
New York – People v. Grady, 506 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1986).
Nevada – Smith v. State, 688 P.2d 326 (Nev. 1984).
Oregon – State v. Middleton, 657 P.2d 1215 (Or. 1982).
Minnesota – State v. Myers, 359 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1984).
California – People v. Roscoe, 215 Cal.Reptr. 45 (Cal.App. 5th Dist-1985).
Kansas – State v. Reser, 767 P.2d 1277 (Kan. 1989).
Wyoming – Stephens v. State, 774 P.2d 60 (Wyo. 1989).
Montana – State v. Geyman, 729 P.2d 475 (Mont. 1986).
The following states allow Summit-inspired expert testimony but only for rehabilitative purposes of state witnesses and not as direct evidence attesting to the veracity of a particular witness:
Washington – State v. Madison, 770 P.2d 662 (Wash. 1989).
Maine – State v. Black, 537 A.2d 1154 (Me. 1988).
Alaska – Rodriquez v. State, 741 P.2d 1200 (Alaska Ct.App. 1987).
Delaware – Wheat v. State, 527 A.2d 269 (Del. 1987).
Iowa – State v. Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 1986).
Arizona – State v. Moran, 728 P.2d 248 (Ariz. 1986).
Pennsylvania – Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 502 A.2d 253 (Pa. 1985).
Colorado – People v. Gaffney, 769 P.2d 1081 (Colo. 1989).
Florida – Tingle v. State, 536 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1988).
Utah – State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah 1989).
The Duckett court ruled that Summit-inspired testimony is admissible in Texas for limited purposes under Rule 702 which provides:
“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence and to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
The Duckett court reaffirmed its longstanding rule that the decision of whether expert testimony should be admitted is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id., at 910.
The Duckett court observed that while most courts have rejected prosecutorial efforts to have Summit-inspired expert testimony sanctified as “substantive evidence” of abuse, these same courts have been receptive to the use of such testimony to “rehabilitate a child victim’s credibility.” Id., at 912. The Duckett court elected to follow the rehabilitation approach, citing with approval a group of commentators who stated:
“’The accommodation syndrome has a place in the courtroom. The syndrome helps explain why many sexually abused children recant allegations of abuse and deny that anything occurred. If use of the syndrome is confined to these rehabilitative functions, the confusion clears, and the accommodation syndrome serves a useful forensic function’.” Id., at 913. See also: Meyers, et al., Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 68 Neb.L.Rev. 1, 68 (1989).
Against this cautionary backdrop, the Duckett court found the trial court had not abused its discretion by permitting Brogden to testify under Rule 702:
“In the case at bar, witness Brogden’s testimony consisted of statements which (1) provided the jury with information concerning the six elements or phases of what the Court of Appeals termed the so-called ‘Child Sexual Abuse Syndrome’, and (2) applied those six elements to the facts of the case. There is no doubt that the State indirectly bolstered the credibility of the complaining witness. Yet our review of the pertinent portions of the record discloses the prosecution, except for the one time noted, did not attempt to cross the line and have its expert give a direct opinion on the truthfulness of the child. In an in camera hearing prior to Brogden taking the stand before the jury, the trial judge was careful to define the parameters of permissible questioning, warning both witness and prosecution to stay within the abstract generalities of the elements or phases of intrafamily child sexual abuse and to apply those elements in abstract terms showing the behavior of the child was consistent with the elements. These instructions were followed. S.S. testified that she had been sexually abused by appellant. Her testimony at trial differed from earlier statements. The defense was able to point out inconsistencies, changed testimony, denial or non-disclosure, and confusion on the part of the complainant to such a degree that a question would naturally arise as to the reason for her superficially bizarre or illogical behavior. Explaining this seeming illogical behavior by identifying its emotional antecedents could help the jury better assess the witness’ credibility. Given the information was of such specialized nature which is not normally within the common understanding of a lay jury, in that it was the nature of explanation why S.S.’s behavior was not of such bizarre or illogical nature under the circumstances as generally known in comparison with those characteristics of known abused children, and even though the problem may be one of increasing social awareness, we find it was of a type which could have assisted the trier of fact in determining the fact questions raised by the conflicting testimony of the complainant and her mother …” Id., at 915-16 [Internal citations omitted].
On appeal Duckett had not argued that bizarre and illogical behavior in a child subjected to familial sexual abuse would not occur or that the State’s expert witness was not qualified to testify about such behavior. He simply argued that the jury was capable of deciding whether his niece’s behavior was consistent with sexual abuse without Brogden’s CSAAS explanation. The court of criminal appeals brushed aside this argument, stating:
“ … we have no bright-line standard separating issues within the comprehension of the jurors from those that are not. When the evidence is of such content as to be classified as ‘specialized’ within a particular discipline, a presumption may be drawn that the evidence is not of common experience. The admission of expert testimony is within the discretion of the trial court. Therefore, if a qualified expert offers to give testimony on whether the reaction of one child is similar to the reaction of most victims of familial child abuse, and if believed this would assist the jury in deciding whether an assault occurred, it may be admitted and the trial judge does not abuse his or her discretion in doing so unless the evidence otherwise fails to pass the test for admissibility.” Id., at 971.
After finding that Brogden’s testimony was admissible under Rule 702, the Duckett court turned its attention to the issue of whether Brogden’s testimony had improperly bolstered the State’s case. The court reaffirmed the well-settled evidentiary rule in Texas that the State may not bolster or support its own witnesses unless they have been impeached on cross-examination. Id., at 918 [citing Farris v. State, 643 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982]. The Duckett court pointed out that the defense had already brought into issue the credibility of the victim and her mother before Brogden testified. The defense had accomplished this impeachment task through its strategy to transfer the blame for the abuse to someone else. Id. The appeals court then drew a fine line clarification between improper direct and permissible indirect bolstering of State witnesses:
“The material matters or issues upon which the complainant was impeached were directly related to witness Brogden’s testimony. For that reason, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert witness’ rehabilitative testimony over a defense objection of bolstering. The Court of Appeals incorrectly focused upon the indirect result of the testimony – bolstering of the complainant’s credibility – without reference to the context in which the testimony was allowed … the fact that an expert witness’ testimony may have the indirect result of bolstering another witness’ credibility is not the test for admission under Rule 702 but may be relevant to determination of admissibility under the general rules of relevancy and probative value of evidence … Here, although Brogden’s testimony did have the effect of bolstering the child testimony, such testimony would, if otherwise proper, be admissible to rebut the impeachment of a child in the majority of jurisdictions passing on the question.
“In conclusion, we have today held the trial court properly admitted Brogden’s testimony under Rule 702. The content of the knowledge at issue concerns various so called elements or phases of what may be termed ‘Child Sexual Abuse Syndrome’. Brogden was shown to be an expert in the field of child sexual abuse, having worked or supervised some twelve to fifteen hundred cases and observed hundreds of children testify. Although he did not personally examine the complainant, he was present in the courtroom and heard the testimony of the principal witnesses. The defense having effectively impeached the complainant’s credibility as a witness, the State was allowed, if otherwise admissible, to solicit the expert information and opinion of Brogden to help the jury understand why S.S. changed her testimony and appeared confused. In this regard, Brogden provided information on a topic not of general knowledge to the average layperson. Child abuse, especially of the sexual kind, is not a new problem to society. We have learned, much to our dismay, the problem is larger than ever thought, largely because child sexual abuse was in the past a hidden crime – a taboo topic of conversation. But it cannot be said that each of us understands all facets of the problem, including why a child who has been abused will act in a certain manner which to the layman may appear unreasonable or inconsistent with a claim of abuse. Brogden’s information was both relevant and admissible under the rules of evidence, because it was specialized information of value in assisting the jury to understand the evidence regarding the complainant’s conduct.” Id., at 920 (Emphasis Original). See also: Escamilla v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 762 (Jan. 31, 2006); Dennis v. State, 178 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005);
Hernandez v. State, 53 S.W.3d 742 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d) [both cases endorsing CSAAS testimony].
We close this blog with the following caveat: a defendant must timely and specifically object to any claim of improper expert witness testimony. See: Acree v. State, 2008 Tex.App. LEXIS 6391 (Aug. 22, 2008). As the Acree court aptly pointed out:
“Acree argues that Burress was improperly allowed to testify about her opinion as to whether the child was telling the truth about the alleged assault. Citing Duckett v. State, Acree alleges such testimony was admitted in error. Burress was asked, ‘After reviewing all of the materials in this case and talking to [S.O.], do you have an opinion as to whether or not she is the victim of a sexual offense?’ Burress stated that the question was for the trier of fact, but she had not seen anything to cause her to question or disbelieve the initial outcry and information given to the nurse. No objection was made to this question or the testimony. The only objection cited by Acree was made several pages earlier in the record when Burress was asked what the child ultimately told her. Since no objection was made to this evidence, any objection to the testimony was forfeited and we cannot consider it on appeal.” Id., at LEXIS 11-12.
The Court of Appeals in Cloud v. State further underscored the need for a specific objection to expert testimony. See: 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3299 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007). Cloud argued to the appeals court that the prosecution had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct when it asked “blatantly improper questions, the answer to which suggest that the complainant was truthful and the answer to which would expressly indicate that the complainant was truthful.” Id., at LEXIS 6. The alleged misconduct occurred during the questioning of Detective J. Fitzgerald assigned to the Children’s Assessment Center as a child abuse investigator:
PROSECUTOR: What happens—what do you do if you do not believe the child?
FITZGERALD: If we get one I don’t believe the child, I inform the district attorney that’s working the case, we take the case and review then with, my feelings this is not a valid case [sic].
PROSECUTOR: Would you testify on a case where you did not believe the child?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection. That calls for an improper response, your honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Instruction to disregard that, your honor.
THE COURT: Don’t consider that question. You may continue.
See: LEXIS at 7.
The Cloud court agreed that the questions posed to Fitzgerald had been an improper attempt by the prosecution to bolster the victim’s testimony.
“However, defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s first question about what Fitzgerald would do if he did not believe a child complainant, nor did he object to Fitzgerald’s answer that he would talk to the prosecutor and tell him that he felt the case was not ‘valid.’ Thus, appellant has failed to preserve error on this portion of the ‘bolstering’ evidence.” Id., at LEXIS 8-9.
The Cloud court then turned its attention to the second question—“Would you testify on a case where you did not believe the child?”—where defense made a timely objection that was sustained by the trial court.
“When matters are injected into the trial that have no perceived relevance and are potentially prejudicial to the appellant, appellate courts presume that an instruction to disregard the evidence will be obeyed by then the jury. The exception to the above statement occurs when it appears that the matter injected is clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury and is of such a character as to suggest the impossibility of withdrawing the impression produced on their minds.
“Appellant argues that the motion to disregard in this case was insufficient to cure the error caused by the prosecutor’s misconduct in asking the bolstering questions. However, to preserve error for prosecutorial misconduct, the appellant must (1) make a timely and specific objection; (2) request instruction to disregard the matter improperly placed before the jury; and (3) move for mistrial. Even if an error is such that it cannot be cured by an instruction, appellant is required to object and request a mistrial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. Appellant did not request a mistrial. As such, his point of error is waived.” Id., at LEXIS 10.
Acree and Cloud are instructive on the issue that defense counsel must listen to Summit-inspired expert testimony very carefully and be prepared to make both a timely and specific objection when he/she feels that the prosecutor has crossed the evidentiary line from indirect bolstering of a victim’s credibility as approved in Duckett to direct bolstering of a victim’s credibility as condemned in Cloud. More importantly, defense counsel must be prepared to distinguish at a moment’s notice the difference between an inadvertent and a deliberate crossing of that evidentiary line by the prosecutor so that he/she can make a specific objection for prosecutorial misconduct and timely request as mistrial because of it.
The use of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome by prosecutors is extremely dangerous and usually intentionally bolstering. It is disturbing that the CSAAS factors are premised upon the belief that a child never lies or fabricates allegations of sexual assault. In fact, the state’s experts will often also testify that kids just don’t lie about sexual assault. Using CSAAS, if a child lies about parts of their story, they are telling the truth about the sexual abuse and should be believed. If a child delays outcry for years, they are to be believed. If a child tells immediately, they also are to be believed. If a child later recants and admits lying about the abuse, their first allegations are to be believed. Bottom line, all allegations of sexual abuse by children are to be believed, regardless of the child’s history of lying or fabrication, regardless of inconsistent statements, regardless of recanting, regardless of admissions that the allegations are not true, regardless of contradictory evidence etc. When experts and prosecutors go into a case with this mind set, fertile ground for wrongful convictions and imprisonment have been sowed, truth be damned.
By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Take the first step toward protecting your freedom by contacting us now
Testimonials
John T. Floyd Law Firm
3730 Kirby Drive # 750, Houston
-
If you have hired attorneys that meet the Webster dictionary definition, ie: "Attorney " is a person that has a law degree, will not be totally honest, can take your money … More and not earn it, will put you off until he is ready to talk to you, and/or never study your case to be able to defend you. Mr. Floyd is the only attorney that doesn't fit that definition!! You will be delighted to have Mr. John Floyd in your corner! Not one attorney that I have ever met that would ever return a check that I sent to him, because he said I paid him too much! Wow! That right there should tell you something about his integrity!!!!! He has a very calm demeanor and doesn't stretch the truth even if you don't want to hear it, he will tell you the truth. Call and set up an appointment with him and judge for yourself. You are wasting time and money on any other attorney, just hire the best, Mr. Floyd.
-
John T. Floyd and his team are some of the best people! I was able to get a second opinion from them on legal advice. His team has been honest, kind, and very informative which has … More been a huge blesssing.
-
I highly recommend John T. Floyd Lawfirm. They are truly knowledgeable and willing to go the extra mile to defend your innocence. Psalms 35
-
Outstanding!Professional knowledge. Rich experiences. Good outcome.
-
-
The best lawyer I ever encounter with a very good personality. He’s very professional and he will go far and beyond for his clients best interest. He’s definitely a 5 star attorney … More when it comes to delivering. I couldn’t be more happier that I hired him !! 👏👏👏👏
-
-
I can honestly say from what I have seen so far, Floyd is a compassionate soul who cares for his client's. Floyd is by far very knowledgeable in this area. He's currently … More assisting my [Father] on a sex assault. We are all suffering so much as my father is an elder man, but we have faith in God, and Mr. Floyd he can dismissed this outrageous allegation soon. Thank you, yoli
-
I had wonderful experience with this law firm. They were so helpful and knowledgeable of the process.my case was dismissed because of Mr John T Floyd,thank you for everything .
-
I am very happy today my case dismissed God bless Mr John T Floyd very good lawyer thanks you so mush sir
-
I had a great experience with this Law Firm, the kind staff helped me locate a Lawyer even though they were unable to take my case.
They were very helpful, kind and returned my call … More in a timely manner. I would definitely recommend them and use them in the future. -
I can tell that Jone is an excellent attorney in Houston. Personally, he is a great man. In addition to great service and amazing results. Recommended
-
Mr. Floyd is an incredible attorney and human being. He cares about your case, the facts, the law, and your life! I am sorry for whatever situation you are going through, but choosing … More Mr. Floyd, his firm, and their professional experience to help you, will be the best decision you ever make!
-
John T Floyd is a straight shooter! He was very direct and responsive to my phone calls and questions. I was in awe of his knowledge, and professional decorum! The best decision that … More you could make is to schedule a consultation with him before considering anyone else!
-
I asked the Law Office of John T. Floyd a very important question regarding the legal aspects of purchasing a firearm with a deferred adjudication charge. They answered the question … More very professionally and accurately and I was quite pleased with the information that was shared. I recommend this law firm because they are very honest and will work for you and with you.
-
I’ve never been one to write reviews but this time I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to say something. I had some serious legal questions I needed answers to concerning Texas laws. … More Being I’m from another state, I found and reached out to Attorney John Floyd for the answers. Mr Floyd listened to to my requests and told me what he need from me and went out of his way to get me the answers. Very polite, straightforward and professional, I can’t thank him enough for all he’s done. Whatever your legal case may be, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Mr Floyd.
-
John & Chris helped my family member get a reduced charge and acceptable plea agreement in place. Their compassion, attention to every detail was what helped carry the day.Truly … More the best of the best.P
-
Mr. Floyd is both ethical and loyal to his clients; two qualities that are hard to find specially in lawyers. I'd definitely recommend him to anyone.Positive
Professionalism …More … More -
Mr. John was very helpful and truly was the reason why my case was dismissed. Thank you so much Mr. John I truly recommend everyone in need to work with him.
-
His service to the community and diligence to helping his clients speaks for its self! Not to mention the many articles, papers and TV appearances that speak to his intellect
-
John has given Excellent service and have been very friendly and extremely helpful to us. I highly recommend this law firm
-
This law firm is diligent, responsive and succeeded in getting my case dismissed. 10/10 would recommend.
-
super knowledgeable, good attitude, would definitely recommend him
-
Very helpful, knowledgeable and honest.
-
John is an amazing person and lawyer who is actually very understanding of how anxious I got and although it was hard to reach him sometimes because of his schedule, but never worry … More he is on top of things. He is very organized, very smart. I had the experience to go through a trial with him, and he always plans ahead well and is actually open and receptive to any ideas and comments I had and he was quick to decide which is right to use at the moment. I really appreciated working with him and Chris. Great lawyers and great people. As I was reminded by John, I am adding that the Jury reached a not guilty decision on the original charge and on a lesser charge in just 25 minutes. It took more time to write the charge and instructions for the jury than it took them to reach a decision.
-
Highly recommend John T Floyd law firm, great response time and demeanor.I was researching an on-going criminal case, when I found an informative article written by John Floyd (about … More the perils of expert testimony). I called his office, and was very pleased to receive a timely call back. Not only was Mr. Floyd candid and helpful, but he had the kindest demeanor of any attorney that I've dealt with. I am so glad to have found this firm.
-
Although I am not a client, John Floyd contacted me the same day I sent an email requesting advice, answered my questions and even when further to assist with my issue and communicated … More with me the next day. A true credit to his profession and I can only imagine how well he provides services to his actual clients!
-
I give Mr. Floyd 10 Stars if they were available so I'm giving him five that's all that's available. The first time I left a message for him it was on a Friday after … More 5 p.m. and within 15 minutes he called me back I told him I needed to buy a lotto ticket because that has never happened. I knew from our chat and him calling me back that he was different from any attorney I've tried to talk to left messages never got called back they didn't even know what I needed and neither did Mr. Floyd but he did call me back. I was very interested in meeting with mr. Floyd about my case because I felt he was very transparent honest and genuine. If you've ever dealt with attorneys they don't have those traits but Mr. Floyd does. He was very honest with me told me what I could and could not do with my case. He is not egotistical he's very compassionate and he actually reads the documents you sent him unbelievable that's never happened. He will be the only lawyer I refer to anyone that needs his expertise. If you're in need of a criminal defense attorney please give John T Floyd a call you will not be disappointed.
-
Mr John is a great human being and a very knowledgeable attorney. He has always called me back promptly,advised me very clearly and never rushed our conversation. i was wrongfully accused … More and Mr John had my case DISMISSED!! on the day of trial after fighting for me for two years. I am very thankful to the John T. Floyd Law Firm. You will not go wrong with John. Mr John you deserve way more then 5 stars.Thank youShaikh.
-
John Floyd Law Firm is highly recommended for your legal needs. He and his staff are highly professional in every aspect. Easy and comfortable feeling talking with him, and he understands … More your needs and explains your legal advice in a way you can understand. Enough just cant be said. Thank You Sir.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John was kind enough to assist me with legal advise on my firearm gun rights restoration. I highly recommend him and his firm. Very professional and knowledgeable. If I need assistance … More in the future I will definitely go back to him.
-
What I liked the most was that he actually returned my phone after leaving a message unlike pretty much everyone else I called prior. He listened and answered my question with the best … More advice that would benefit me the most. I was actually lost from moving to Texas from a different state we’re laws vary and he pointed me toward the right direction to get a understanding of if I need to do business with him now or after I contact a lawyer in my home state.
-
John T Floyd handled my sons case & got a dismissal for us! He is great to work with, gets back to you promptly & knows what he’s doing. Definitely one of the best we have had … More to deal with!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John is honestly the best! The whole team is. He answered me in a timely manner and helped me when my friend was going through a situation in Houston, Texas as an inmate. He was so … More thorough, honest, and without charging me sent me so much information because I was out of the loop. He never once tried to take you for your money, he did all that he could to. help me and I can't thank him enough.
-
I have used John on two occasions and found him to have full knowledge of Texas law, diligent, creative in plan, and aggressive in defense. He is the best criminal defense attorney … More in the State of Texas. No reason to look elsewhere.
-
I have been calling to get some legal advice pertaining to gun rights. A few legal offices would not even take my call because quote " your not a client and Im losing money. … More I I called John T. Floyd Law Firm and they were not only able to answer my question, but gave great detail information, and further elaborated on their answer. I hope I do not have to use them in the future, but if I do need to, they will be my first call.
-
Great lawyer! Needed some advice and gave me a Consultation, and advice for steps to take, without any hassle l, Was a honest guy and actually wanted to help me and not just take my … More money! Highly recommend!!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Attorney Floyd replied very timely to my inquiry and he provided practical advice. I will not hesitate to contact him in the future if I need additional legal counsel.
-
Highly recommend, down to earth lawyer. Talked to me about my legal issues without being super money hungry and genuinely wanted to help me with my legal problems. 5 stars ⭐️.
-
Very knowledgeable and professional. I called and left a message Friday morning and before end of business that day I received a call back.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism … More …More -
Very helpful highly recommended for any Question / case will definitely keep he's name and number for any other legal advice
-
Excellent service and a lawyer that doesn't lie. He does what he says. JW recommends him.
-
One of the best services Ive used in awhile. Thank you for all the help and answers. You got my life back. Thank youPositive
Quality …More -
Im impressed. This guy was polite and professional and most important...he listened.
-
Good experience and very good lawyer
-
-
-
Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, ValueMore -
It was a pleasure speaking with John. He is knowledgeable and has a true desire to help the people of society. I turned to him for some guidance of a long-standing issue. He never … More rushed our conversation and went out of his way to look into the details to provide the right answer as well as assist me anyway he could. Thank you for our conversations and I wish your and your firm the best. If you need a lawyer, John Floyd is your guy!
-
John represented me in court for roughly 2 years. I won't (and shouldn't) get into any serious details, but let me tell you that I couldn't have chosen anyone better. … More Seriously.Every appearance in court I felt very comfortable. The judge and DA's had a high regard for his reputation. There is a time I recall where simply his presence greatly impacted the court's interpretation of my case and persons. We were in front of the stand and the judge could not stop talking about John's prestige and past accomplishments and how that took in relation to my case. I kept silent in front of the judge, but I observed then that John's popularity and reputation within the court had already given me a better looking rapport with the judge. Let me tell you, I never had more confidence then, knowing that the judge held him in such high regard.This is not to mention how personable John is. I'll be honest that during the stress of court, sharing a laugh with your lawyer helps a lot. This may sound a lot, but I really appreciated the relationship we had then. This is also not to mention that he was able to deal very well with any DA that rotated over the years. Seriously, John was great, prompt with information and very hands on with my case. I had great peace those 2 years until everything wrapped up.If you're looking for a lawyer, I highly, HIGHLY recommend the John T. Floyd Law Firm. He IS nationally renowned, you know. He'll get the job done to the utmost confidence. He's very experienced and has a great record to boot. I am glad to have had him represent me in court and trust me that I never thought I'd ever say that (and whoever does?). We explored every avenue of victory together and I personally enjoyed the experience, despite the seriousness of the accusation.If you have a case that needs to be represented at the highest levels, choose John T. Floyd. He's a good man and very good at what he does. Him and his team has the experience you need to make the best decisions and options to get the best outcome for your case. We got the best result I could possibly ask for, thank God.Seriously. Hire John. He knows what he's doing.Seriously.
-
One of the few honest lawyers I have ever talked to. His complimentary consultation was knowledgeable and thorough. He knew exactly what the issue was and how to handle it. His candid … More appraisal of the situation and how to proceed saved me thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you have a case requiring expertise in John's area of practice, look no further. Hire this man!
-
I had the opportunity to read an article that Mr. Floyd wrote and it was very interesting. I called him about the article and advice concerning a similar situation. He not only gave … More me excellent advice, he pointed out not just what I wanted to hear but what I needed to hear concerning my situation. The Good, The Bad and The ugly in a manner or speaking. He spoke with an open and honest heart with information to help me and not just to get a client.
-
If you are in trouble and need a lawyer, contact the John T. Floyd law firm. Some of the best lawyers in Texas work there! Understanding and helpful lawyers and staff that will do all … More they can to help you 😊
-
He gave me one of the most honest answers I have received in a very long time about any issue I was having with anything. Legal or not legal. I highly recommend giving him a call and … More will be referring him to friends and family if they have any issues in the future.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He took time out of his day to answer my legal questions and didn’t even charge me. I would definitely recommend him to you.
-
Gave free consultation on getting gun rights back. He truly cares about gun rights and getting you the help you deserve. 100% worth a callPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, … More Value …More -
Very professional, great quality work, and very friendly and helpful. Overall, their service is phenomenal. I recommend Mr. Floyd to anyone.
-
Mr. Floyd took the time to explain his experience with the law to me in layman's terms. Definitely give him a call.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He was honest , knowledgeable , and professional about what we talked about. Most lawyers are just about the money , but not john.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He was very truthful and honest with us very great man I would recommend him and we would use him again
-
Very professional honest and works hard currently working my husband’s appeal I pray he does his best workPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I contacted John T. Floyd Law firm and I was very satisfied with service extremely helpful and friendly thank you Mr. FloydPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More … More -
This law frim was informative,great response time ,and the attorney called back not some secretary or legal assistant thank u guys for all your help wish it was more like youPositive … More
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I would highly recommend Mr Floyd. He was very helpful and knowledge with a legal question I had.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He explained my case better then any other lawyerPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Very informative
-
-
-
-
Had the pleasure speaking with John Floyd on a personal matter, he was very responsive, nothing but exceptional, and he really cares about you with sincerity and most importantly knows … More what is he talking about! No games or bs, his approach to my situation even though I knew it was probably way smaller then what he normally takes on, he was extremely helpful and didn't care about the size of the matter like other attorneys do. He really looked out for my best interests. You can tell he has decades of experience doing what he does just by chatting with him. I would highly recommend him.
-
Words can’t describe how grateful I am for working with John, he went above and beyond my expectation. I was wrongly accused and hired many lawyers before hiring John Floyd but they … More all disappointed me, I had lost hope until a friend of mine referred me to John. From the start he had my best interest in mind and gave helpful advice, he explained the process and guided me. He put more work and time than all my previous lawyers that cost me thousands of dollars. He was constantly communicating with court and defended me more than all lawyer i had hired before him. Don’t waste your time and money like I did, believe me when I say I hired countless lawyers before him and no one came close to John. I’m forever thankful for him for fighting for my innocence and getting my case dismissed. Thank you so much🙏🏼🙏🏼
-
I called Mr Floyd and left a message, with in the hour I received a call back with much more information then I could have ever expected. Mr Floyd was very informative on every question … More I had for him. He seemed like he cared, instead of like most attorneys that you talk to that are just out for a quick buck. If you want someone that is going to shoot strait with you, and has your best interest in hand, this is you guy. This was the best experience that I have ever had with an lawyer.
-
I can state with confidence that Mr. Floyd and his team are the most competent and professional lawyers one can hope for. My case was quite complex and I admit that as a law student … More I was not the most patient client. Mr. Floyd did a phenomenal job of managing the bench, prosecution and myself! The result was above expectation, and I will never hesitate to recommend this firm regardless of the caliber of the case at issue.
-
It was a pleasure working with Mr. Floyd. I contacted him regarding a legal matter and he was extremely knowledgeable about the law, and responded in a timely manner. I appreciated … More the fact I did not feel rushed, and he made sure he thoroughly answered all questions I had. I would highly recommend him!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
Spoke with John Floyd about a 45 year old criminal case I was involved in. I had very little information about the case and John helped me search what records were available and gave … More me guidance to find more information. He was very professional and took his time helping me. I may need to hire a lawyer on this case and Mr. Floyd will be the man.Thanks John.
-
Very professional and straight forward. He's not going to waste your time or money. Very knowledgeable in a large range of possible matters one could face living in these days … More and times. If ever you need legal assistance, this is who I would suggest. Awesome!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I called about some legal questions I needed to get clarified and John was able to give me clarification and sound advice. I will definitely contact John for all future legal questions … More and issues.Thank you John!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism, Value …More -
Knows his stuff and well respected with DA and judges. I have referred him a couple times and every client has been satisfied
-
John is beyond knowledgeable! If I decide to pursue my case any further I would only have him represent me.
-
What a great attorney, this guy really took time out of his day to answer my questions and explain my case to me. Very grateful, thank you so muchPositive
Professionalism …More -
Absolutely a very professional lawyer. Very well read in the current law and more than willing to help if needed.
-
Mr. John he’s a professional he knows what he’s doing and he’s patient they recommend Him stronglyPositive
Professionalism …More -
Great service, very knowledgable and happy to help with any questions I had
-
Quick to action and helpful and knowledgeable with entertainment industry based issues!
-
Responded on a holiday week. Very knowledgeable and reassuring.
-
Very professional
-
-
-
-
I want to thank John T. Floyd and all of his team. He is the best lawyer who cares aboutHis clients and fights really hard to get the best outcome. He is a fighter and he is awesome!!!I … More recommend if any one needs criminal defense , he is the BEST. We had a really serious caseAnd we are very thankful for the outcome. Thank you John!!!!! God bless you!!!!!!
-
The attorneys at John T. Floyd Law Firm work diligently to achieve the best possible results for their clients. They are caring and knowledgeable professionals. Their expertise in the … More law and their experience as trial attorneys makes them the right choice as a defense attorney. I recommend this law firm highly.
-
From beginning to end this firm handled my case like the top tier professionals they are. I would not trust ANYONE else with my legal needs after having less than stellar experiences … More with other teams. Thank you Floyd!!!
-
I really felt like the team cared about my case and am super satisfied with the outcome. Would not recommend anyone else!
-
These guys do amazing work and have phenomenal service! Hands down best in the Houston area!!
-
John and Chris are true professionals! Love those guys like family!
-
Mr. Floyd and his team are very knowledgeable, informative, and helpful.
-
A team you can depend on to stand up and fight for you to prove the truth the whole truth!
-
-
Mr. John T. Floyd represented me.I couldn't be happier with the outcome he managed to achieve on an VERY Important case that was dismissed the day of Trial. He is patient & … More very knowledgeable of the legal system. I HIGHLY recommend him to anyone in need of a lawyer!John, I am forever grateful & satisfied with the effort you put forth & all you did for me. Thank you isn't enough!God bless you & your family!
-
The John T. Floyd Law Firm assisted me, and I can tell you that the attorney took the time to answer my questions, and I didn't feel rushed or dismissed as I have experienced in … More the past with attorneys. The attorney was very nice and extremely knowledgeable. Initial impressions and continued excellent customer service are big factors for me and as such I would highly recommend this firm.
-
I thank you for your efforts to help Felons regain their Civil rights, and for the information on possession , I am A convicted Felon, no violent history. I am an expert shot, I am … More 76 yoa, and very concerned about the present lake of Security in our State and Country. God Bless and Prosper you in your efforts, Your friend, Sonny Bivens
-
I really appreciated both Chris and John helping with my legal questions and concerns. Both are good guys and I would not hesitate to recommend them.
-
Extremely helpful!!! Helping me understand the law.
John T. Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Request A Confidential Consultation
Fields marked with an * are required
"*" indicates required fields
Copyright © 2024 John T. Floyd Law Firm • All rights reserved.
Designed & Developed by
