Blog
THE IMPACT OF SMITH V. CAIN
High Court Misses Opportunity to Discuss Ethical Obligations of Prosecutors
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
For reasons we discussed in a previous post, the U.S. Supreme Court had an opportunity in Smith v. Cain to discuss the ethical discovery obligations of both federal and state prosecutors—an idea h6ly suggested by the American Bar Association in their amicus brief filed in the case. While the issue before the Court was whether Louisiana prosecutors had committed a Brady violation in a murder case by suppressing favorable evidence, the ABA had encouraged the Justices to use the case to emphasize that a prosecutor’s pre-trial ethical obligations to disclose exculpatory and mitigating evidence under Rule 3.8(d) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.09(d) in the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, are broader and distinct from the post-conviction Brady analysis. In its amicus curiae brief, the ABA framed the issue as follows:
“The case involves numerous serious allegations of non-disclosure that, post-trial, a court must evaluate under this Court’s Brady jurisprudence. However, a prosecutor’s pre-trial ethical disclosure obligations, as governed by the attorney disciplinary rules of the state or jurisdiction in which the prosecutor practices, are separate from and broader than the constitutional standards.
Specifically, the ABA Model Rule 3.8(d) [Model Rules of Professional Conduct] mandates disclosure of exculpatory and mitigating evidence without regard to materiality. This Rule’s widespread acceptance is reflected in the fact that 49 states, including Louisiana, as well as the District of Columbia, United States Virgin Islands, and Guam have adopted ethics rules that include a provision identical or substantially similar to it. Similarly, various provisions of the ABA Criminal Justice Standards promote broad disclosure of all exculpatory evidence, without regard to the materiality standard that is required for post-trial analysis under Brady. Accordingly, this Court should again recognize that a prosecutor’s pre-trial ethical disclosure obligations are distinct from the constitutional standards that control a court’s post-trial determination.”
Although the Court reversed the conviction in Smith v. Cain, the Justices did not even mention a prosecutor’s pre-trial ethical obligations to disclose Brady material. It was an affront to the ABA. But we suspect, as we long have, that the Supreme Court is determined to provide as much ethical and constitutional cover for “rogue prosecutors” as possible. Put simply, the Court wants the status quo to remain in place; namely, that the worst consequence a prosecutor can expect for committing a Brady violation is a slap-on-the-wrist reversal of the conviction involved, as it did in Smith v. Cain.
While the reversal of the illegally obtained conviction in Smith v. Cain is welcomed, it is terribly disappointing that the court did not step up to the plate and address the pre-trial ethical disclosure obligation. But that should not rain on the duty of criminal defense attorneys at the federal level to submit detailed, comprehensive letters of discovery to the Government in all criminal cases.
The discovery letter should include a full recitation of Rule 3.8 which sets forth the “special responsibilities of a prosecutor.” A good lead to follow is the standard letter used by the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia which supports its discovery requests with substantive case law. A discovery letter should outline three specific areas of Brady disclosure: 1) duty to disclose; 2) the materiality/impeachment evidence standards; and 3) what information is subject disclosure. The following is a non-inclusive list of some the legal issues a prosecutor must consider in complying with discovery demands:
TIMELINESS
The Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland held that Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose a duty on the Government to disclose to the defendant certain, specific types of information. Brady defined this information as evidence “material” to either guilt or punishment. The Supreme Court in Bagley v. United States defined “material,” saying evidence is material if there is a “reasonable probability” that its disclosure would have changed the outcome of the verdict. Bagley added that “a reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome” of a criminal trial. The Supreme Court in Kyles v. Whitley added that all “favorable evidence is material …”
Inherent in the Brady duty to disclose is the requirement that the disclosure be made in a timely manner. For example, the Second Circuit, in United States v. Matthews, found a Rule 16 violation because the government attorney withheld a letter written by the defendant instead of disclosing it within a timely manner.
Thus, a discovery letter should include the warning that if the Brady material is not disclosed in a timely manner, a motion for a continuance and a request for sanctions will be filed with the court.
MATERIALITY
The United States District Court for the Central District of California in United States v. Sudikoffsaid it was not appropriate for federal prosecutors to use the post-conviction Bagley “materiality” analysis during pre-trial discovery. The federal district court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin in United States v. Carter specifically held: “[I]n the pre-trial context, the court should require disclosure of favorable evidence under Brady and Giglio without attempting to analyze its ‘materiality’ at trial.”
The Fourth Circuit of Appeals agrees. In Monroe v. Angelone, the conservative appeals court said that while some Brady material that comes to light post-trial may not constitute a violation because of redundancy, that does not “excuse discovery obligations” pretrial. While “materiality” may exist as a defense in the post-trial setting, this is not a license to make “materiality” determinations pre-trial. As the court in Sudikoff explained:
“The [materiality] standard is only appropriate, and thus applicable, in the context of appellate review. Whether disclosure would have influenced the outcome of a trial can only be determined after the trial is completed and the total effect of all the inculpatory evidence can be weighed against the presumed effect of the undisclosed Brady material … This analysis obviously cannot be applied by a trial court facing a pretrial discovery request.”
The Lewis court put it this way: “[T]he materiality prong presumes that the trial has already occurred and requires the court to determine whether the result could have been different had the evidence been disclosed. But a court deciding whether materiality should be disclosed prior to trial does not have the luxury of reviewing the trial record.”
Most federal courts strogly believe that prosecutors should not make pre-trial discovery decisions regarding materiality of evidence “at the end of the [same] telescope” used by an appellate court post-trial.
Finally, the discovery letter should include the caution that, as stated in Virgin Islands v. Fahie, prosecutorial “bad faith” is “probative to materiality” as well as relevant to determining a remedy.
INFORMATION SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE
The Supreme Court in Banks v. Dretke
illustrated the kind of evidence so clearly subject to disclosure. In Banks, state prosecutors, in a capital murder case, did not disclose to the defense that a key witness for the prosecution was a paid government informant and that another witness had been coached by prosecutors. The court stated, “one can hardly be confident that [defendant] received a fair trial, given the jury’s ignorance of the withheld evidence.”
The Fourth Circuit in Monroe v. Angelone found a Brady violation because the cumulative effect of plea deals and inconsistent statements could have undermined the prosecution’s proof of premeditation and malice in first degree murder case.
The Second Circuit in Disimone v. Phillips found a Brady violation because exculpatory statement would have allowed the defense to investigate another party’s involvement.
Likewise, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Sipe found a Brady violation because the cumulative effect of undisclosed statement, criminal history of witness, and benefit to testifying aliens undermined credibility of a key witness.
The Ninth Circuit in United States v. Santiago found a Brady violation because prosecutor had knowledge of and access to inmate files, including the defendant’s files held by Bureau of Prisons.
The Second Circuit in Leka v. Portuondofound a Brady violation because off-duty policeman’s undisclosed observations would have contradicted testimony of other witnesses.
IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE
Beyond its duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, the Government must disclose any deals, arrangements, promises, and incentives given to a prosecution witness whose testimony is important to the defense because it is relevant for impeachment purposes. For example:
The Third Circuit in United States v. Pelullo found a Brady violation because an FBI agent’s undisclosed notes and FBI surveillance tapes could have been used to impeach government witness whose credibility was central to case.
The District of Columbia in United States v. Cuffie found a Brady violation because undisclosed evidence of witness’s prior perjury could have impeached witness, even though the witness had been impeached by a cocaine addiction, cooperation with prosecution, incentives to lie, and violation of oath as police officer.
The Sixth Circuit in O’Hara v. Brigano found a Brady violation because undisclosed written statement by victim could have been used to impeach victim’s testimony.
Likewise, the Sixth Circuit Joseph v. Coyle found a Brady violation because witnesses’ undisclosed testimony transcripts, notes on witness interviews, and immunity agreement would have impeached prosecution’s crucial witness.
The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Miller found Brady violation because undisclosed referral letter could have been used to impeach witness at trial.
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION REGARDING GOVERNMENT WITNESSES
The courts have cut a broad, unmistakable swath about what information the Government should disclose about its witnesses. Below is a list:
The Ninth Circuit in Singh v, Prunty found a Brady violation because of “favorable deal” given to a star witness.
Likewise, the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Strifler found a Brady violation when, after request by defendant, Government does not disclose information in probation file relevant to witness’s credibility on ground that it was privileged.
The First Circuit in Mastracchio v. Vosefound Brady violation because knowledge of Witness payments or favors made by the Witness Protection team is discoverable.
The Seventh Circuit in Crivens v. Roth found Brady violation because failure to disclose crimes committed by Government witness is Brady even when witness used aliases.
Likewise, the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Boydfound Brady violation for failure to disclose drug use and dealing by Government witness and “continuous stream of unlawful favors” including phone privileges, presents, and special visits.
The Sixth Circuit in Schledwitz v. United States found Brady violation because Government witness portrayed as neutral and disinterested expert had actually been investigating defendant for years.
The District of Columbia in United States v. Brooks found Brady violation if a specific request is made by defendant and Government does not search records of police officer/witnesses.
The Fifth Circuit in Guerra v. Johnson found Brady violation for failure to disclose police intimidation of key witnesses and information regarding suspect seen carrying murder weapon minutes after shooting.
OTHER SUSPECT INFORMATION
The most significant discoverable material is undoubtedly information pointing to someone other than the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime—known as “other suspect information.” The Supreme Court in Brady fully established this constitutional violation because state prosecutors in that case failed to turn over statement by co-defendant that he had planned the killing and that he alone had actually performed the killing
The Eighth Circuit White v. Helling found a Brady violation in a 27 year old murder case because the Government did not disclose that its chief eyewitness had originally identified someone else and identified the defendant only after several meetings with the police.
The Fourth Circuit in Spicer v. Roxbury found a Brady violation because prosecutors did not disclose witness’s prior inconsistent statement that he did not see the defendant.
The Tenth Circuit in Banks v. Reynolds found a Brady violation because prosecutors did not disclose another individual or individuals had been arrested for the same charge.
The Ninth Circuit in United States v. Service Deli, Inc. found a Brady violation because prosecutors failed to turn over original notes from witness interview that contained three pieces of impeachment information which showed the witness’s statement had changed—a change that may have been induced by threats of imprisonment and witness’s claim that he had suffered a stroke.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Mowbray found a Brady violation because prosecutors failed to disclose exculpatory expert report.
RULE 16: FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Cathy A. Brook, Executive Director for the Federal Defender Program for the Northern District of Illinois presented a paper on “Federal Criminal Discovery” at a 2010 Orientation Seminar for Assistant Federal Defenders. This paper is an excellent review of the kinds of discovery mandated under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16—the primary statutory source for Brady discovery as pointed out by the court in United States v. Griggs. The Rule, as noted by the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Jeffers, is a “mandatory” direction to the Government to inspect and copy certain information, but only upon defense request.
Rule 16(a)(1)(A) requires, upon defense request, that the Government disclose defendant’s relevant oral statement made in response to a person the defendant knew was a government agent if the Government intends to use the statement at trial. The following rules have emerged under this section: 1) the substance of any relevant oral statements not reduced to writing where statements were made by defendant to a person defendant knew to be a Government agent; 2) statement must have been made in response to interrogation before or after arrest; 3) Government must intend to “use” statement; 4) defendant generally not entitled to his/her oral statements made to a third person which were later repeated to Government agents, unless a written record is contemplated at time defendant’s oral statements are made; 5) written statements made by the defendant to a third person who gave them to a Government agent who put them in a report; 6) all grand jury testimony of the defendant, “which relates to the offense charged”; 7) defendant is generally only entitled to co-conspirator or co-defendant statements which are admissible against defendant under F.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E) if the Government does not intend to call the co-conspirator as a witness; and 8) disclosure of co-defendant’s statements is discretionary, but refusal to order will not be error unless specific motion for disclosure is made.
Rule 16(a)(1)(B) rules concerning discovery of the written or recorded statement.
Subsection (B)(i) requires Government to furnish the defense with all relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant which are in the custody or control of the Government and which are known to the Government or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the Government.
This following obligations and principles have emerged under this subsection: 1) standard does not create high threshold—production has become practically a matter or right; 2) this section include draft transcripts of tape recordings in addition to the tapes themselves; 3) due diligence requires Government to disclose statements made to local police officers; 4) includes relevant statements from other cases; 5) includes taped telephone conversations in prison; 6) includes prior statements on INS forms; 7) includes law enforcement notes taken during and after defendant interviews; and 8) test seems to be whether other agencies are “closely aligned with prosecution.”
Subsection (B)(ii) requires Government to furnish to the defense: 1) written records containing the substance of relevant oral statements made by defendant to a person defendant knew to be a government agent in response to interrogation, before and after arrest.
Rule 16(a)(1)(C) pertains to the “organizational” defendant statements which state that, upon request, the Government must disclose a organizational defendant’s written or oral statements which meet the requirements of (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) and which were made by a person who could legally bind the defendant.
Rule 16(a)(1)(D) contains the rules regarding disclosure of defendant’s prior record. This subsection 1) permits discovery of defendant’s “rap” sheet, requested from FBI, Probation Office, and state.
Rule 16(a)(1)(E) contains the rules regarding disclosure of documents and objects. This subsection provides that the defense is entitled to and requires: 1) all documents material to defense; 2) documents Government intends to introduce in its case-in-chief; 3) obtain originals of fingerprints and handwriting exemplars; 4) request all lineup photos, photographic show-ups, and reports stating results of such and the circumstances surrounding them in preparation for possible motions to suppress; 5) request drug dog training and handling records; 6) request information available to Government showing similar activities by person other than the defendant, such as bank robberies; and 7) look for cases where shoe is on other foot.
Rule 16(a)(1)(F) contains the rules regarding disclosure of examinations and tests. Defense entitled to results or reports of tests and exams which are in the possession or control of the Government and are known to the Government or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the government and which: 1) are material to the defense or the Government intends to introduce in its case-in-chief; 2) requires exercise of due diligence; 3) request results of all lab tests; 4) request result of handwriting, hair, fingernail, voice, etc.
comparisons; 5) request samples on which to conduct independent tests; 6) not sufficient for Government to argue materials were released to prior attorney; 7) narcotic dog’s training records, standards, etc. are discoverable; and 8) courts are split on whether defendants are entitled to underlying data or lab protocols.
Rule 16(a)(1)(G) contains the rules regarding the disclosure of experts. This subsection requires Government to furnish upon defendant’s request written summary of expert testimony Government intends to use during case-in-chief, including: 1) notice of expert’s qualifications, necessary to determine whether witness is actually an expert; 2) disclosure of summary of expected testimony and list of cases in which witness has testified; and 3) disclosure of summary of basis for expert’s opinion, whether or not expert prepares a report. This subsection particularly requires timely disclosure.
CONCLUSION
The ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function, § 3-6-2(b) (3d Ed 1993) Information Relevant to Sentencing provides: “The prosecutor should disclose to the defense and to the court at or prior to the sentencing all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.”
A discovery letter should be as comprehensive, clear and concise as possible. It may, along with discovery and Brady motions, have to be used on appeal. Smith v. Cain underscores that the only remedy for a defendant who has been the victim of a Brady violation is reversal of conviction, which may come years after the defendant has been convicted. A comprehensive discovery letter highlighting all of a prosecutor’s pre-trial ethical obligation and post-trial “materiality” obligations may deter some prosecutors contemplating withholding key favorable evidence. But this process begins with that discovery letter.
By: Houston Criminal Attorney 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
