Blog
THE JENCKS ACT
Using Statements of Government Witnesses to Impeach Testimony
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
There are five primary sources outlining the obligations of U.S. Attorneys to disclose either favorable or impeachment evidence: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,16 and 26.2, the Jencks Act [18 U.S.C. § 3500], Brady v. Maryland, and Giglio v. United States. Of these, Jencks is probably the most controversial and certainly the least useful. Jencks, named after Clinton Jencks, was a product of the “Red Scare” and McCarthyism in the 1950s. The Act was the bastard-child of Congress in 1957 following a controversial decision by the U.S. Supreme that same year reversing Clinton Jencks’ conviction for lying about being a member of the Communist Party of the United States. That’s right, folks. There was a time in America’s uncelebrated history when a person could be investigated, convicted and imprisoned for being a “communist”—much like the “Green Scare” of the present time where Muslims are under similar fear based prejudice and unnecessary pressure from law enforcement.
Born in Colorado Springs in 1918, Clifton Jencks was a labor organizer in New Mexico in 1954—one year after Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in New York’s infamous Sing Sing Prison (the Feds did not have an electric chair) on June 19, 1953 for passing secrets about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. Fifty years after the execution theNew York Timesreported that “the Rosenberg case still haunts American history, reminding us of the injustice that can be done when a nation gets caught up in hysteria.” As president of a local affiliation of the International Union of Mine, Mine & Smelter Workers, Jencks was required to file an “Affidavit of Non-Communist Union Officer” with the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act. Following an investigation by the FBI, then led by famed communism fighter J. Edgar Hoover, Jencks was indicted on two counts of lying in his affidavit. His subsequent trial was conducted in the Western District of Texas.
During Jencks’ trial, FBI agents testified that Harvey Matusow and J.W. Ford informed them that they and Jencks were members of the Communist Party of New Mexico. The two men became paid informants for the law enforcement agency. Jencks filed a motion prior to trial requesting that the court direct the Government to produce the written reports prepared by the FBI so they could be used in cross-examining the two informants. The court denied the motion. Jencks appealed the denial to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the trial court’s ruling. Jencks then sought, and secured, certiorari review before the U.S. Supreme Court after which the high court reversed his conviction. The court explained why the reports by the two paid communist informants were critical to Jencks:
“Former Party members testified that they and the petitioner, as members of the Communist Party of New Mexico, had been expressly instructed to conceal their membership and not to carry membership cards. They also testified that the Party kept no membership records or minutes of membership meetings, and that such meetings were secretly arranged and clandestinely held. One of the witnesses said that special care was taken to conceal the Party membership of members, like the petitioner, ‘occupying strategic and important positions in labor unions and other organizations where public knowledge of their membership to non-Communists would jeopardize their position in the organization.’ Accordingly, the Government did not attempt to prove the petitioner’s alleged membership in the Communist Party on April 28, 1950, with any direct admissions by the petitioner of membership, by proof of his compliance with Party membership requirements, or that his name appeared upon a membership roster, or that he carried a membership card.
“The evidence relied upon by the Government was entirely circumstantial. It consisted of testimony of conduct of the petitioner from early 1946 through October 15, 1949, and of Matusow’s testimony concerning alleged conversations between him and the petitioner at a vacation ranch in July or August 1950, and concerning a lecture delivered by the petitioner at the ranch. The Government also attached probative weight to the action of the petitioner in executing and filing an Affidavit of Non-Communist Union Officer on October 15, 1949, because of the events surrounding the filing of that affidavit. The Government bridged the gap between October 15, 1949, and July or August 1950 with the testimony of Ford that, during that period, the Party took no disciplinary action against the petitioner for defection or deviation, and did not replace the petitioner in the Party office which Ford testified the petitioner held as a member of the Party State Board.”
The central issue before the Supreme Court was the trial court’s ruling, made at the behest of the Government, that Jencks had not laid a “preliminary foundation” that the statements the two informants made to the FBI and their trial testimony were inconsistent. Straight out of the legal chute, the high court held that Jencks was not required to lay a “preliminary foundation” in order to secure the informants’ statements to the FBI. The court explained its reasoning:
“The crucial nature of the testimony of Ford and Matusow to the Government’s case is conspicuously apparent. The impeachment of that testimony was singularly important to the petitioner. The value of the reports for impeachment purposes was highlighted by the admissions of both witnesses that they could not remember what reports were oral and what written, and by Matusow’s admission: ‘I don’t recall what I put in my reports two or three years ago, written or oral, I don’t know what they were.’
“Every experienced trial judge and trial lawyer knows the value for impeaching purposes of statements of the witness recording the events before time dulls treacherous memory. Flat contradiction between the witness’ testimony and the version of the events given in his reports is not the only test of inconsistency. The omission from the reports of facts related at the trial, or a contrast in emphasis upon the same facts, even a different order of treatment, are also relevant to the cross-examining process of testing the credibility of a witness’ trial testimony.
“Requiring the accused first to show conflict between the reports and the testimony is actually to deny the accused evidence relevant and material to his defense. The occasion for determining a conflict cannot arise until after the witness has testified, and unless he admits conflict … the accused is helpless to know or discover conflict without inspecting the reports. A requirement of a showing of conflict would be clearly incompatible with our standards for the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts and must therefore be rejected. For the interest of the United States in a criminal prosecution . . . is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. . . .’” [quoting from Berger v. United States].
Prior toJencksand long beforeBrady v. Maryland, federal courts routinely engaged in the practice of allowing the Government to produce documents after which the trial judge determined their “relevancy and materiality” without providing a defendant with an opportunity to establish relevance and materiality. The Supreme Court in Jencks disapproved of this practice, saying: “Relevancy and materiality for the purposes of production and inspection, with a view to use on cross-examination, are established when the reports are shown to relate to the testimony of the witness. Only after inspection of the reports by the accused, must the trial judge determine admissibility.”
The U.S. Congress was not pleased with the Supreme Court’s reversal of a conviction of a communist. In response to the reversal, Congress swiftly enacted what became known as the “Jencks Act.” This Act requires the Government to produce verbatim reports and transcripts of either Government agents or witnesses when the defendant makes a specific request for the material; however, Congress stipulated that production of the material is required after the witness has testified. As described by Heather E. Williams in the July 2005 edition of the NACDL’sChampion“The statute emasculates the Supreme Court’s decision, agreeing the records should be disclosed, but limiting disclosure until after the witness has testified.” Put simply, post-testimony production, given the last-minute timing, renders the documents useless for meaningful investigation and cross-examination/impeachment. This is especially true when it comes to Government informants whose initial law enforcement statements frequently differ from their actual trial testimony.
Nonetheless, trial courts have a consistent history of refusing defense attorneys’ attempts to have FBI 302s (witness interview reports) or any notes made during proffers and informant interviews produced prior to trial. This is especially true in the Fifth Circuit as evidenced by the appeals court inUnited States v. Brownin which it held that a defendant’s right to a fair trial is not violated when the trial court refuses to allow the defendant to question FBI agents about their notes. Even if the appeals court finds that the trial court abused its discretion or made a clear error in denying a Jencks Act request, the denial is subject to a “harmless error” analysis. As the appeals court said inUnited States v. Montgomery, “We strictly apply harmless error analysis and determine whether the error itself had a substantial influence on the judgment in addition to determining whether there was sufficient evidence to convict.” In effect, the appeals court weighs whether there is a reasonable possibility that the absence of the requested Jencks material affected the outcome of the case or handicapped the defense in the presentation of its case. A major factor considered is whether the witness’s testimony was significantly different from his/her original statements and their trial testimony.
However, in a brief but excellent article titledUnveiling Informant Testimony: The Unconstitutional of the Jencks Act, Stephen C. Leckar pointed to this exception dealing with Jencks requests: “In general, the standard of review for appellate courts is “abuse of discretion” or “clear error.” However, appellate courts are not especially hospitable to alleged violations of the Act and tend to apply a ‘harmless error’ standard for alleged violations of the Act and focus tends to turn on whether the violation was deliberate or inadvertent. If the notes (e.g., FBI Form 302s) are of an exculpatory nature and pertinent under the distinct but sometimes overlapping demands ofBrady v. Maryland, then a different analysis comes into play. An allegedBradyviolation is adjudicated by determining whether the failure to disclose significantly undermined the verdict’s fairness. Therefore, in the normal run of cases, defendants carry a heavy burden on appeal to show prejudice of a decision to deny discovery of case agents’ notes.”
Leckar made the critical observation that the way Rules 16 and 26.2 and the Jencks Act operate in discovery requests, a defendant can be deprived of his/her “right to effective assistance of counsel,” especially in federal narcotics and gang violence cases because these cases rely heavily on informant or accomplice testimony—both of which are notoriously unreliable. The Federal courts function under the mistaken notion that defense counsel will be able on cross-examination to determine the “for profit” motivation and/or fabrication so routinely associated with informant or accomplice testimony. If defense counsel is not provided with pre-trial disclosure of the statements of these witnesses, including law enforcement notes, he/she cannot mount a meaningful and effective cross-examination of them.
And if defense counsel discovers impeachment evidence in post-testimony Jencks material, a request for mistrial or curative instructions are routinely denied by the trial court, and as Leckar noted, the appeals courts are not “hospitable” to Jencks-related claims. The only real remedy for the defendant is to secure the assistance of other counsel or proceedpro sewith a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel caused by Government misconduct. And such a claim is riddled with its own pitfalls: even if the defendant can establish an ineffective assistance claim, he/she must then prove prejudice to the extent of showing the guilty verdict would not have been returned had there been a pre-trial disclosure of the Jencks material.
These legal principles underscore the need for pre-trial disclosure of Jencks material. Leckar crystallized this need for such disclosure:
“An estimated one percent of Americans are pathological liars. Putting these people aside for the moment, ‘[a]ccomplices, if they give information or testify, may have a natural tendency to lie in order to minimize their part in the crime. Their motivations to perjure themselves may vary, but there is scant doubt that any number of factors, including the desire to minimize incarceration, may motivate cooperation. Fear, revenge, the belief that if he or she does not testify against a co-defendant the co-defendant may testify against him, as a mean of reordering a previously hierarchical relationship by testifying against a superior, the desire to take over an organization after helping to put the co-defendant away, and so forth, all constitute possible motivations to commit perjury.
“Cooperating witnesses, which in the underlying cases constitute a vast majority of the law enforcement witnesses, are susceptible to several extraneous influences. They are ‘(1) easily manipulated by coercive and suggestive interviewing techniques; (2) readily capable of giving false and embellished testimony with the prosecutor’s knowledge, acquiescence, indifference, or ignorance; (3) readily capable of creating false impressions by omissions or memory alterations that in the absence of any recordation or documentation eludes disclosure and impeachment; and (4) able to present … testimony to the jury in a truthful and convincing manner, which because of the nature of the cooperation process is difficult to impeach through cross-examination.’
“Two other factors exacerbate the problem of shifting accounts arising from proffer sessions. The Sentencing Guidelines, for one, ‘create a powerful incentive for cooperators to exaggerate and falsify information.’ It blinks at reality to think that the Guidelines do not create a powerful incentive to lie and derail the truth-seeking purpose of the criminal justice system. Even within the Justice Department, ‘there are few, if any, internal standards for substantial assistance to guide the discretion of prosecutors’ and the Department’sPrinciples of Federal Prosecution‘do not require a prosecutor to take into account the truthfulness, reliability, or completeness of a defendant’s testimony when making a substantial assistance determination.’ At the vest least, ‘there is serious concern that this unregulated process corrupts the truth because it “encourage[s] some defendants to exaggerate or falsify information in order to obtain their [U.S.S.G.] 5K1.1 letter.”’”
The second factor discussed by Leckar was the interaction between Government agents and cooperating witnesses during “proffer and debriefing conferences” which have been described by Michael S. Ross as “the flashpoint which triggers perjury.” The Honorable Stephen S. Trott has described the quality of the evidence produced during proffer/debriefing conferences:
“Witnesses don’t just take the stand and produce nice narratives in response to non-leading questions without considerable work that the uninitiated cannot possibly appreciate.
“The process by which prosecutors debrief the cooperating witness during proffer sessions and then prepare the witness to testify at trial is typically lengthy, measured in multiple interviews that occur over many weeks, if not months.
“As an experienced appellate judge has remarked, ‘[i]f you decide to call an informer as a witness, you will end up spending much time with him preparing for his testimony.”
Some legal experts refer to these sessions as black holes of corroboration because, as Leckar noted, “they are fertile ground for evidence of cooperators’ inconsistent statements and bias to surface.” Not providing the defense with this valuable impeachment evidence prior to trial, especially when there is little, if any, corroboration for the evidence, renders the trial itself a mockery—a travesty routinely endorsed by trial and appellate courts. Informants and accomplices are criminals; they understand what prosecutors want to hear, and if they suspect the prosecutor knows they are lying, they are experts at manipulating the prosecutor’s desire for conviction and fear of acquittal. It takes a criminal to know a criminal. As Michael Ross put it:
“[W[hen a prosecutor tells a defendant or defense counsel what testimony is expected of the defendant (either in detail or in the form of bullet points) in order to qualify for coconspirator/leniency/immunity status, the defendant is powerfully motivated to parrot what the prosecution wants and expects to hear. Similarly, if the defendant or his or her counsel provides a proffer of facts, which is then followed by the prosecutor announcing that those facts are insufficient or inaccurate, again the cooperating witness is powerfully motivated to ‘change the story’ to accommodate the prosecutor’s version of the truth.”
The Jencks Act was never intended to be a legitimate “discovery tool” for the defense. Rather it was enacted in response to the “Red Scare” of the 1950s and had the actual intent of curtailing legitimate impeachment evidence for a criminal defendant, especially a communist. While Jencks was initially created as a legislative tool to curb the “red under every bed” threat, it has morphed into a prosecutor’s favorite shield to avoid production of material evidence in drug and gang violence cases, especially those involving paid undercover informants and cooperating accomplices.
And it is often this corrupt process—the proffer/debriefing/cooperation sessions—which produces so much of the misconduct, failure to disclose exculpatory or mitigating evidence, prevalent in federal prosecutions.
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
John Floyd is Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
The below article is available for free and open access by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Criminal Law Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons.
Leckar, Stephen C., “Unveiling Informant Testimony: The Unconstitutionality of the Jencks Act,” Criminal Law Brief 3, no. 1 (2007) 40-48.
Michael S. Ross,Thinking Outside the Box: Proposals for Change: How the Enforcement of Ethical Rules Can Minimize the Damages of Prosecutorial Leniency and Immunity Deals, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 875, 879 (2002).
Stephen S. Trott, Words of Warning for Prosecutors Using Criminals as Witnesses, 47 Hastings L.J. 1381, 1383 (1996).
In Texas, similar rules regarding the production of witness statements in criminal cases are found in TRE 615.
It is important to note that Jencks is distinct and apart from prosecutors’ obligations underBrady. “Exculpatory information, regardless of whether the information is memorialized, must be disclosed to the defendant reasonably promptly after discovery. Impeachment information, which depends on the prosecutor’s decision on who is or may be called as a government witness, will typically, be disclosed at a reasonable time before trial to allow the trial to proceed efficiently.” US Attorney’s Guidance on Discovery
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
