Blog
Hope For Actually Innocent Offenders
More than 90 percent of criminal defendants plead guilty rather than go to trial.
While some of these defendants are innocent and choose to plead guilty rather than face a more severe sentence following a jury guilty verdict, the overwhelming majority of them are in fact guilty of the offenses to which they plead. That leaves the less than ten percent of people who face a jury because many of them are in fact innocent. Juries find thousands of innocent individuals guilty who ultimately receive long prison terms; some are sentenced to death. While the figures vary, research shows that as many as 2 to 5 percent of the nation’s two million plus offenders, either in prison or in some form of community supervised release, are innocent.
There are two overriding reasons why innocent people are convicted and sent to prison:
- Government misconduct (mostly prosecutorial)
- Ineffective assistance of counsel, (either at the trial or appellate level.)
And there are two overriding reasons why innocent inmates find it virtually impossible to have their actual innocence claims heard in post-conviction proceedings. First, there has been a historical reluctance by the courts, led by the U.S. Supreme Court, to entertain “actual innocence” claims in habeas corpus proceedings; and, second, “procedural bars” erected by both the Congress and the courts alike make it exceedingly difficult to present “newly discovered” evidence claims in post-conviction proceedings, at both the state and federal level. This reflects an attitude among too many judges that once a criminal conviction is obtained and the initial appeals affirm the conviction, that conviction should be “final” and not open to further review.
But there have been recent developments at the judicial and legislative level that could significantly impact “actual innocence” claims. First, the Texas Legislature passed, and Gov. Rick Perry signed, the Michael Morton Act which requires prosecutors to provide criminal defense attorneys any evidence relevant to the defense of the case. This law came in the wake of the tragic Michael Morton case—a man who spent 25 years in the Texas prison system for a crime he did not commit (here, here and here). The Legislature also passed a bill that is sitting on Gov. Perry’s desk awaiting signature or veto which would require prosecutors to undergo training to ensure that they understand the rules of disclosure of evidence in criminal cases. This ethics-oriented training would be mandatory within six months of employment of prosecutors.
Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in a Texas death penalty case that will allow claims of ineffective assistance of counsel claims to be more adequately addressed in Texas courts. In 1996 Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed into law, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) which was codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). A major underpinning of AEDPA was to streamline the process of seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus. Consequently, however, the Act virtually eliminated the availability of the federal writ of habeas corpus to state prisoners who do not adhere to the strict procedural requirements governing access to the writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Even before ADEPA, there were intense procedural obstacles a state prisoner had to mount in order to have a habeas petition heard pursuant to section 2254. For example, a state prisoner who filed a patently frivolous writ, or delayed for years before filing his writ, or filed repeated applications for the writ, or did not follow all the procedural post-conviction rules at the state level (e.g., meeting the deadlines for filing petitions from one state court to another), or did not exhaust all his state remedies before seeking federal habeas relief could have his federal petition summarily dismissed under section 2254. Most often, these kinds of federal habeas petitions are dismissed as being “procedurally defaulted.”
That’s precisely the procedural nightmare that ensnared Carlos Trevino who, following conviction, was sentenced to death because the jury did not find sufficient mitigating evidence necessary for him to qualify for a life sentence. Trevino believed his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not adequately investigate the mitigating punishment evidence issue. Following Trevino’s formal sentencing to death, the trial assigned new counsel to handle the condemned inmate’s direct appeal who did not raise Trevino’s ineffective assistance claim on appeal. After his direct appeal was denied, Trevino sought collateral review of his conviction/death sentence with the assistance of a new appointed attorney who also did not raise the ineffective assistance in these initial habeas corpus proceedings. Trevino’s post-conviction review was, like his direct appeal, denied. He then sought federal habeas review under section 2254 in which the ineffective assistance claim was raised for the first time.
Citing the provisions of ADEPA, the federal district court held that Trevino had “procedurally defaulted” the ineffective assistance claim by not raising it in his initial state habeas proceeding. The Fifth Circuit upheld that lower court decision. Trevino then sought, and secured, certiorari review before the Supreme Court on the ineffective assistance claim; namely, that trial counsel was ineffective for the handling of the mitigating evidence issue; that appellate counsel was ineffective by not raising the ineffective counsel issue on appeal; and that post-conviction counsel was ineffective by not raising the ineffectiveness issue during the initial habeas proceeding.
Almost all states are procedurally geared to having ineffective assistance claims heard in post-conviction proceedings. While most states refuse to allow the claim to be raised on direct appeal, a few appeals courts will address the issue only if it is abundantly clear from the trial record that defense counsel was either effective or ineffective. Texas is one of those states that permit such a limited review of ineffective counsel on appeal, although its courts prefer to have the issue heard in the initial post-conviction proceeding where it can be fleshed out in a fact-finding hearing. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court in Martinez v. Ryan held in a significant ruling that a substantial ineffective assistance of counsel claim by a state prisoner could not be “procedurally defaulted” in a federal habeas proceeding if (1) the prisoner was not represented by counsel in the initial state post-conviction proceeding; or (2) the prisoner was denied effective assistance of counsel in that proceeding.
In the Trevino case, Texas sought to avoid the Martinez mandate because its post-conviction rules permit a defendant to file a motion for new trial requesting that a hearing be held to factually develop an ineffective assistance claim. The problem with the procedure, however, is the time constraints for filing such a motion, getting the transcript prepared, and having all this completed before the mandatory time arrives for having the direct appeal filed. This convoluted procedure, the Supreme Court found, does not actually provide a defendant with a meaningful opportunity to have the ineffectiveness claim heard on direct appeal. In fact, the motion for new trial procedure could conceivably default a defendant’s direct appeal review for failing to meet the deadlines associated with the filing of an appeal. That’s why the Supreme Court held that the Martinez mandate applies to Texas because there is no distinction between (1) a State that refuses to hear an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal and a (2) a State, like Texas, that permits the issue to be heard on direct appeal but erects procedures which effectively denies a meaningful review of the issue.
The Trevino ruling had an immediate impact. Just days after the Supreme Court handed down Trevino, the court remanded six more death penalty cases back to Texas courts for a determination of whether they had been denied effective assistance of counsel in their post-conviction review proceedings.
But all is not quiet on the actual innocence front. The U.S. Supreme Court in two other cases, concerning Floyd Perkins and Rosa Jimenez, refused to squarely decide whether a state prisoner can present a “free standing claim” of actual innocence in federal habeas proceedings (here, here and here). What does “actual innocence” actually mean? It means quite simply that an innocent person has been wrongfully convicted for a crime that he/she did not commit. It is a subject-matter we have devoted significant attention to in recent years, given that 302 persons have been exonerated through DNA evidence since 1989.
We have previously explained that a state prisoner who has been wrongfully convicted, and who has had his wrongful conviction upheld on direct appeal, and who has exhausted all of his state post-conviction remedies, has one last opportunity to establish his/her innocence in a court of law: an application for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. But that is not a friendly venue for state prisoners, even for those wrongfully convicted for a crime they did not commit. All applications for federal habeas relief by state prisoners are governed by the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Put simply, this means federal courts may consider a state prisoner’s claim of unlawful custody only if his/her conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
State prisoners first face the daunting task of surmounting the federal rule, under 2254(e)(1), that all state court decisions upholding a conviction are presumed to be correct. Then he/she must show, under 2254(d), that any state court decision addressing a federal constitutional claim is either “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application” of a “clearly established” U.S. Supreme Court “precedent.” Making these procedural obstacles even more daunting, a state prisoner does not enjoy the right to present a “free-standing” claim of actual innocence in federal habeas proceedings; he must support the innocence claim with an “independent” constitutional violation. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Herrera v. Collins, qualified this rule somewhat by leaving open the possibility that, in a capital case, “a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of the defendant unconstitutional.”
But an innocent state prisoner not under a death sentence spending the rest of his/her life in prison is not per se unconstitutional. Innocence alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by a clear showing of a constitutional violation before a federal habeas court will even consider the issue. Since Herrera was decided in 1993, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to change this position, thereby not recognizing actual innocence as a “free-standing” claim warranting independent review: Henry v. Skinner (2011), District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (2009), In re Troy Anthony Davis (2009), House v. Bell (2006), and Schlup v. Delo (1995).
The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year once again in the Jimenez case refused to resolve the “free-standing” actual innocence issue. The refusal is significant because prominent legal scholars from across the country, as well as Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins and the Mexican government, urged the Court to do so in the Jimenez case—a case that has drawn national and international media attention because of her credible claim of “actual innocence.” The Hispanic caregiver was convicted in 2003 in connection with the tragic death of a 21-month-old child in her care. She was given a 75-year sentence for felony murder and a 90-year sentence for the injury to a child. On direct appeal to the Third District Court of Appeals, sitting in Austin, Jimenez raised several constitutional violations but the thrust of her appeal was that the evidence presented by the State had been insufficient to support the guilty verdict—a backdoor route to an “actual innocence” claim on direct appeal. The facts surrounding this issue are extensive—in fact, too extensive to summarize, either from the State or Jimernez’s perspective, to fully appreciate what occurred in the home of Victoria Gutierrez on January 30, 2003. These facts were comprehensively detailed by the appeals court in its September 2007 decision denying Jimenez’s direct appeal.
The Jimenez case was ultimately assigned to then-Judge Charlie Baird, who gained national prominence in the Timothy Cole case. Judge Baird conducted an exhaustive evidentiary hearing in December 2010 in the Jimenez case. According to a January 8, 2013 Austin Chronicle report, the hearing featured “a phalanx of top experts” who testified that the Gutierrez child’s choking death “was more likely a tragic accident” than a felony murder. These experts were contrasted by the sole expert who testified for Jimenez at trial and who had a “meltdown on the stand” and who “cursed at prosecutors in the hallway”—behavior used to “discredit him on the stand.” Based on the convincing and compelling testimony given by the experts at the hearing, Judge Baird recommended to the Court of Criminal Appeals that Jimenez was entitled to a new trial. That court, however, rejected Judge Baird’s conclusion, ruling last April that there is no “clear and convincing” evidence to support Jimenez’s claim of innocence.
Jimenez’s attorneys sought certiorari review before the U.S. Supreme Court last summer. And leading legal scholars, like University of Texas law professor Jordan Steiker, saw Jimenez’s case as an excellent opportunity for the Supreme Court to not only recognize but determine what legal standard should be applied in deciding “free-standing” claims of actual innocence. The host of legal scholars and Mexican government notwithstanding, the court refused to do so.
The Supreme Court in the Perkins case agreed to decide whether a state prisoner claiming “actual innocence” when petitioning for a federal writ of habeas corpus must do so with “reasonable diligence.” This originated out of the State of Michigan and arrived at the Court by way of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. A few background facts are necessary to understand the rather thorny procedural and constitutional issues the case presents to the High Court. First, Perkins was convicted of a murder that occurred in Flint, Michigan on March 4, 1993. There are a number of undisputed facts about the murder. Perkins, Damarr Jones, and Rodney Henderson attended a house party together on the night of March 4. They left the party together. Later that evening Perkins and Jones arrived at another friend’s house where they played video games. The issue in the dispute is how Henderson was killed between those two points in time. Jones said that as the trio walked down a wooded trail from the first house to the second, Perkins pulled out a knife and stabbed Henderson to death. Perkins said that the trio stopped at a store to buy alcohol and cigarettes; that Jones and Henderson left together while he remained in the store to pay the bill; and that he found Jones standing under a streetlight in bloody clothes.
The police, and ultimately the district attorney, believed Jones’s version of the events. Jones testified against Perkins who was convicted of killing Henderson. The State’s conviction rested almost exclusively on Jones’s testimony. It was a flimsy case at best. Neither version of the events surrounding Henderson’s murder offered by Jones or Perkins passes the normal test of logic. And that’s what makes the issue before the Supreme Court so critical: Jones’s testimony could be either the plausible truth or a patent lie.
Perkins’ conviction became final on May 5, 1997, and thus he had until May 5, 1998 to seek habeas relief under section 2244. For whatever reason, he did not seek federal habeas relief during that inflexible one-year limitation period. For all practical purposes, he became “time barred” from ever filing a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus under section 2254.
But three significant developments occurred before and after Perkins’s conviction became final on May 5, 1997 that calls into question the section 2244 time bar. First, on January 19, 1997, Perkins’s sister, Rhonda Hudson, signed an affidavit in which she swore she had heard Jones brag about stabbing Henderson and taking his clothes to the cleaners after the murder. The record does not indicate why Perkins failed to use this affidavit as a basis for timely seeking federal habeas relief during the one-year limitation grace period.
The second event occurred on March 16, 1999 when Demond Louis, a younger brother of one of Perkins’s friends, signed an affidavit in which he swore that Jones had admitted to him on the night of the murder that he (Jones) killed Henderson; that Jones was wearing orange shoes, orange pants, and a colorful shirt; and that he saw blood on Jones’s pants and shoes.
The third event occurred on July 16, 2002 when Linda Fleming, a dry-cleaning clerk, signed an affidavit in which she swore that a man matching Jones’s description came into the cleaners around the date of the murders asking whether blood stains could be removed from clothing that matched the description of the clothing Louis had described Jones was wearing on the night Henderson was killed.
On June 13, 2008, Perkins filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to section 2254 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. He raised the following issues for relief: sufficiency of evidence, trial procedure, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instruction and ineffective assistance of counsel. While we have no direct evidence of this, we surmise that Perkins waited more than ten years to file his federal habeas petition because he was exhausting one or more of the foregoing issues at the state level. There are times when the exhaustion of remedies at the state level can take years.
In any event, a U.S. Magistrate recommended that Perkins’s petition be denied as time-barred under AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitation. Perkins’s objected to this recommendation. His objection was based on AEDPA’s “new evidence” limitation which extends the one-year limitation from “the date on which the factual predicate of the [new evidence] claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” In other words, the one-year limitation is tolled in cases where “new evidence” has been discovered through due diligence and begins to run anew for one year after discovery of the new evidence. Put simply, Perkins’s filed his federal habeas petition almost five years after the “new evidence” limitation had expired on July 16, 2003—one year after Linda Fleming’s affidavit. To get around this “new evidence” time bar, Perkins suggested that the “new evidence” limitation should be equitably tolled because he is “actually innocent” of murdering Henderson.
Not only did the district judge uphold the magistrate’s time bar recommendation but added that the three affidavits were not the kind of “new evidence” upon which an “actual innocence” claim could be based under sections 2244 and 2254. Further, the district judge noted that this affidavit-evidence had been substantially available to Perkins before his trial and that it merely reinforced his defense, which the jury had rejected, that Jones had framed him for Henderson’s murder. And to nail down the coffin and snug the “new evidence” away in the ground, the district judge admonished that even if the three affidavits fell within the ambit “actual innocence evidence,” they would be time-barred because Perkins had not pursued them with “reasonable diligence.” It was that last observation that set up the Supreme Court’s involvement in the case because the district judge relied upon the 2005 decision by the High Court in Pace v. DiGuglielmo which held a petitioner seeking to equitably toll a statute of limitations “must demonstrate” that he has been “diligent” in pursuing his rights.
Perkins made a timely request to the Sixth Circuit to appeal the district judge’s denial of his writ application. On February 24, 2010, the appeals court granted Perkins’s request and agreed to hear his appeal. In a March 1, 2012 decision, the Sixth Circuit made the preliminary observation significant to Perkins’s claim, and applicable to any state prisoner making an “actual innocence” claim; namely, that AEDPA’s statute of limitation can be equitably tolled only if a state prisoner is “factually innocent,” not whether “there was insufficient evidence to convict him.” The district judge had ruled that Perkins did not make this showing, but his analysis in reaching that conclusion was “limited to two sentences.”
Thus, the Sixth Circuit elected to preclude review of whether Perkins had met the threshold showing that he is “factually innocent.” Instead the appeals court confined its review to the sole issue of whether a state prisoner who makes a “credible showing of actual innocent must also make a showing of reasonable diligence in order to equitably toll AEDPA’s statute of limitations and have [his] claim heard on the merits.” The appeals court had previously held in Souter v. Jones that “where an otherwise time-barred habeas petitioner can demonstrate that it [is] more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the petitioner should be allowed to pass through the gateway and argue the merits of his underlying constitutional claims.” Defined, this means that the “gateway” of an actual innocence claim from section 2244 to section 2254 “does not require the granting of the writ, but instead permits the petitioner to present his original habeas petition as [as if] it had not [been] filed it late.” In effect, the court held that a state prisoner who makes a credible claim that he is “factually innocent” based on new evidence is entitled to a second bite of the federal habeas apple.
In its May 28, 2013 decision in the Perkins case, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, finding the appeals court had erred because it eliminated “timing as a factor in evaluating the reliability of the affidavits.” The Supreme Court effectively held that its previous holding in Schlup v. Delo governing the “gateway” to actual innocence is adequate in deciding claims like those presented in Perkins’s case. In other words, there is still no right to present a “free standing” actual innocence claim in federal habeas proceedings.
Following on the heels of its Perkins decision, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the Alonzo Jay King case; namely, when the police make an arrest supported by probable cause, they can detain, take, and analyze a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA. The court reasoned that this DNA procedure is no different than fingerprinting and photographing a criminal suspect, both of which have been held reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. That’s what happened to King in 2009 following his arrest on assault charges: a cheek swab taken pursuant the Maryland DNA Collection Act. That swab matched one taken in an unsolved 2003 rape case for which King was subsequently convicted. King unsuccessfully argued before the Supreme Court that the Act violated the Fourth Amendment.
While mandatory DNA cheek swabs in all felony arrests might result in some wrongfully convicted inmates being declared innocent, we must agree with Justice Scalia’s forceful dissent that this process places law enforcement in an entirely new dimension. He opened his dissent (which was joined by Justices Sotomayer, Ginsburg and Kagan) with this observation:
“The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of a crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Whenever this Court has allowed a suspicion-less search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime.
“It is obvious that no such non-investigative motive exists in this case. The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous. And the Court’s comparison of Maryland’s DNA searches to other techniques, such as fingerprinting, can seem apt only to those who know no more than today’s opinion has chosen to tell them about how those DNA searches actually work.”
Well said.
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
