Blog
A DREW PETERSON DEFENSE
Legislators and State Prosecutors Attempting to Deny Confrontation Clause Guarantees, Presumption of Innocence
By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Former Illinois police sergeant Drew Peterson has been married four times. Wife three, Kathleen Savio, died under mysterious circumstances in February 2004 just weeks before her divorce settlement with Peterson was to become final. Her dead body was found lying face down in an empty bathtub. Her hair was soaked in blood from a head wound. A Coroner’s Jury ruled her death an accident.
But Savio’s family members from the beginning believed that Peterson was responsible for her death. It had been an abusive, violent marriage from the beginning. Who was responsible for the spousal abuse in the marriage is still a subject of considerable debate. Kathleen tried to have a domestic violence complaint filed against Peterson but he was never charged. Kathleen, however, was charged twice in 2002 with battery and domestic battery, although she was acquitted each time. Kathleen reportedly told her family members that if something happened to her, Peterson would be responsible.
But despite the unusual circumstances surrounding Kathleen’s death, there was never any serious law enforcement effort to charge Peterson with any kind of crime associated with her death. Then in 2007 Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared under peculiar circumstances. Stacy’s disappearance immediately drew virtual non-stop cable news channel coverage. Nancy Grace could barely contain herself. She rode that news pony to death until the Caley Anthony case broke in 2008 giving her another media pony to ride into the ground.
Stacy Peterson’s disappearance also gave the Savio family an opportunity to resurrect her death from the grave. They pressed for an exhumation and a new autopsy. There were so many sound bites and news spins that the 24-hour cable news cycle could barely keep abreast of the dizzying pace of the coverage. There were times when the Peterson case forced a historical presidential campaign to take a backseat to “breaking news” about some “new detail” discovered in the case. Chris Matthews was not the only cable chatterer who felt a “tingle” running up his leg.
The daunting media coverage in the Peterson case was not lost on Illinois politicians, particularly Will County state’s attorney James Glasgow. Within weeks of Stacy’s disappearance, Glasgow joined the Illinois State Police by naming Peterson a “suspect” in what they believed was a “homicide” instead of a disappearance. The Savio family capitalized on this media-driven turn of events to secure the exhumation of Kathleen’s body for a criminal autopsy. The results of that autopsy, photographs of the “crime” scene, and police reports convinced Glasgow that Kathleen Savio had been murdered.
But the county prosecutor had a problem. The physical evidence supporting the homicide theory was not conclusive; and all the statements by members of the Savio family based on what Kathleen reportedly told them and Kathleen’s own requests for protective orders would be inadmissible in a court of law under traditional hearsay rules of evidence.
But State Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi, D-Joliet, found a way around the hearsay rules of evidence by introducing a bill that would allow a judge to admit hearsay evidence in a first-degree murder case if prosecutors could prove the defendant killed the witness to keep him/her from testifying. The bill was enacted into law, even as Wilhelmi and others tried to say the law was not “in response to the Drew Peterson case.” Some Republican lawmakers disputed that claim.
Glasgow finally had what he needed to secure a first degree murder indictment against Peterson in connection with Kathleen Savio’s death. Peterson was indicted on May 7, 2009 in a two-count first degree murder indictment, charging that he killed his former wife by forcing her to inhale fluid. Glasgow immediately rushed before the news cameras, announcing: “In essence, what you’re basically allowing the victim of a violent crime to do is testify from the grave.”
One of Peterson’s attorneys, Joel Brodsky, was not impressed with this new legal reasoning. He said the law had been passed specifically to put his client behind bars based on nothing more than “rumor and innuendo” and that the law denied a defendant of his constitutional right to confront his accusers. “They’re changing the law, changing the rules, changing forensic findings to get [Peterson],” Brodsky told the media. “The law [is] not supposed to be made for a particular case.”
Brodsky may find a receptive judicial ear for his constitutional challenge based on a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation. The U.S. Supreme Court just last year confronted a similar confrontational issue in the case of Dwayne Giles.1/Like Peterson and Savio, Giles and his girlfriend Brenda Avie had a tumultuous relationship that came to a violent end when Giles shot and killed Brenda in the garage of his grandmother’s California house. No one witnessed the shooting, although Giles’ niece heard what occurred in the garage from inside the residence.
The niece told the authorities that she heard Dwayne and Brenda talking in normal conversational tones before Brenda started yelling “Granny” several times followed by several pistol shots. The niece and “Granny” ran outside the house where they saw Dwayne standing near Brenda’s body. Unarmed, Brenda had been shot six times. An autopsy report subsequently revealed that one of Brenda’s wounds was consistent with her holding her hand up in a defensive posture when shot, another wound showed she had turned to her side as if to flee, and a third wound was consistent with her having been shot in the back while laying on the ground.
Dwayne fled the shooting scene but was apprehended a couple weeks later. He was charged with murder. Without any eyewitnesses to the actual shooting, the prosecution introduced statements Brenda had made three weeks before her death to a police officer responding to a domestic violence report involving the couple. Brenda was crying at the time she reported to the officer that Dwayne had accused her of having an affair; that the couple had argued about this accusation; and that Dwayne had grabbed her by the shirt, lifted her off the ground and choked her. Brenda told the officer she managed to break free and fell to the floor at which time Dwayne started punching her about the head and face. She managed to get away a second time as Dwayne pulled a knife and threatened to kill her if he found out she was cheating on him.
Dwayne offered a different version of the relationship during his defense. He told the jury he acted in self-defense; that Brenda was jealous; that she frequently threatened people; that she had once shot a man; and that she had vandalized his home and car on several occasions. He said on the day of the fatal shooting Brenda called him threatening to kill him and his new girlfriend who Brenda had seen earlier that morning at his grandmother’s residence. Dwayne testified that Brenda showed up later at his grandmother’s house and again started making threats to kill him and his girlfriend. Dwayne said he walked out of the house into the garage where he retrieved a gun, took the safety off, and started walking back toward the house. He said Brenda came charging out of the house at him, and believing she had something in her hand, he closed his eyes and fired several shots at her. The jury was not impressed by the defense. It convicted him of murder.
During Giles’ trial, the prosecution called the police officer who testified about the statements Brenda had made to him several weeks before she was killed. The admission of those statements was clearly questionable under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause which guarantees a person accused of a crime with an absolute right to confront witnesses who give testimony against him/her. California prosecutors argued that the statements were admissible evidence under an Sixth Amendment exception rule known as the “doctrine of forfeiture”—a doctrine rooted in the historical constitutional principle an accused forfeits his/her confrontation right if they engage in an intentional criminal act to make at witness unavailable at trial.
This prosecutorial tactic, and its approval by the trial court, was upheld through the state’s appellate process. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, agreed to resolve the issue based on a ruling it had made three years earlier in the case ofCrawford v. Washington.2/In the Crawford case the Supreme Court essentially held that it recognizes only those exceptions to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause that were recognized at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The Crawford analysis began with the basic principle that a witness who makes “testimonial” statements against a defendant must be made available at trial so the defendant can confront and cross examine that witness.
The Crawford court said the “doctrine of forfeiture” was a “founding-era exception” to the Confrontation Clause. The court also recognized the more widely known “dying declaration” exception popularized on film in many Hollywood murder mysteries. The latter exception clearly did not apply in the Dwayne Giles case and would not apply in the Drew Peterson case. As it was in the Giles case, the doctrine of forfeiture will also be a central issue in the Peterson case.
This common-law doctrine was referred to by the Supreme Court in Giles’ case as “forfeiture by wrongdoing.” The court was more comfortable with phraseology because the doctrine historically allowed the statements of witnesses who had been “detained” or “kept way” from a trial by “means of procurement” of a defendant. The doctrine was first recognized by a court of law in 1666 in theLord Morley’s Casewhere English judges held statements made by a witness at a coroner’s inquest could be read at a defendant’s trial if the prosecution could establish that the witness had been “detained by the means of procurement of the prisoner.”
English common law and American common law have interpreted this doctrine very narrowly in cases where it could be demonstrated that a criminal defendant engaged in conduct “designed to prevent the witness from testifying.” Legal scholars and court decisions wrestled for years to precisely define the terms “kept back,” “detained,” and “by means or procurement.” The Supreme Court in Giles was comfortable with the definition of the “forfeiture doctrine” expressed in an 1858 treatise that said the doctrine applies when a witness “had been kept out of the way by the prisoner, or by some one on the prisoner’s behalf, in order to prevent him from giving evidence against him.”3/The Giles court pointed out that it was not aware of any case where the forfeiture doctrine had been invoked absent the requisite showing that the defendant had engaged in conduct designed to keep the witness from testifying against him/her.
In a nutshell, the Giles court underscored the historical recognition that a defendant must “intentionally” engage in very specific conduct motivated by his/her desire to prevent a witness from testifying. This narrow interpretation meant that in cases where a defendant caused a person to be absent—such as killing the person as Giles had killed Brenda but had not done so with a specific intent to keep that person from testifying—any accusatorial statements by that person [such as the statements Brenda Avie made to the police officer several weeks before her death] could not be introduced into evidence against the defendant—unless the accusatorial statements fell into the “dying declaration” exception.
The Supreme Court drew support for this constitutional position from two famous English common law cases decided in the late 1700s. In both cases—King v. WoodcockandKing v. Dingler—the English courts recognized dying declarations as an exception to the right of confrontation but held that statements made to investigators by two murder victims (one 48 hours prior to death and the other 11 days prior to death) were not “dying declarations” because the victims had not perceived that they were going to die. These two cases formed the basis of the American common law jurisprudence that a murder victim/witness must be aware that death is imminent and inevitable for his/her statements to be considered “dying declarations.”4/
The State of California, and the dissenting justices in the Giles decision, reasoned that Brenda Avie statements were properly admitted under the traditional legal “maxim that a defendant should not be permitted to benefit from his own wrong.” The State and dissent invoked Gilbert’s 1756 Law of Evidence that stated if a witness was “detained or kept from appearing by the means and procurement,” the witness testimony could be read at a defendant’s trial because a defendant should “never be admitted to shelter himself by such evil Practices on the Witness, that being to give him Advantage of his own Wrong.”5/
The Giles majority opinion written by Justice Antoine Scalia was not swayed by this legal reasoning. Justice Scalia pointed out that the “wrong” and “evil Practices” cited by Gilbert referred to intentional conduct by a criminal defendant “designed to prevent a witness from testifying.”
Prosecutors in the Drew Peterson case will have to prove with convincing evidence that Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio to keep her from testifying against him in some criminal matter. That will be an impossible hurdle. There were no pending criminal charges against Peterson at the time of Kathleen’s death. The fact that Peterson may have killed Kathleen Savio—just as Dwayne Giles undeniably killed Brenda Avie—is not enough, standing alone, to allow prosecutors to use any statements she may have made to her family members or that she in fact made in court documents requesting a protective order in a criminal prosecution him.
Justice Scalia stressed there was no sound constitutional basis for diluting the “doctrine of forfeiture” prerequisite that there be a showing that a criminal defendant engaged in intentional conduct “designed” to prevent a witness from testifying against him/her in order to use hearsay statements a witness made to another person. “The notion that judges may strip the defendant of a right that the Constitution deems essential to a fair trial,” Scalia wrote in Giles, “on the basis of a prior judicial assessment that the defendant is guilty as charged, does not sit well with the right to trial by jury. It is akin, one might say, to ‘dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty.”
Swayed by the media fanaticism led by the likes of Nancy Grace and non-stop “Just In” or “breaking news” coverage on the cable news channels, the Illinois Legislature passed a “Drew Peterson Law” designed to usurp him of the essential constitutional right of confrontation because of the popular public belief that he is “obviously guilty.” The Illinois Legislature does not have the legal authority to undermine Drew Peterson’s established and clearly recognized right of confrontation guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
As with most Americans, we do not know if Drew Peterson is in fact guilty of killing his third wife Kathleen or whether he was criminally responsible for the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy. What we do know, and what we will never relinquish to media hysteria, is our belief that Drew Peterson, like every individual accused of a crime, enjoys a constitutionally-protected presumption of innocence which Illinois legislators and state prosecutors are attempting to deny him. What we believe, and truly hope, is that the Illinois Legislature has set up a constitutional confrontation that will end with the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the “Drew Peterson Law” just as it struck down Dwayne Giles’ California murder conviction.
SOURCES:
1/Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (U.S. 2008)
2/Crawford v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (U.S. 2004)
3/E. Powell,The Practice of the Law of Evidence166 (1st Ed. 1858)
4/King v. Woodcock, 1 Leach, at 500, 168 Eng. Rep. at 352;King v. Dingler, 2 Leach 561, 168 Eng. Rep. 383 (1791)
5/G. Gilbert,Law of Evidence140141 (1756)
By: Houston Criminal Defense 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
