Blog
A SIGNIFICANT “OUTCRY WITNESS” CASE?
Sanchez v. State: 38.072 Outcry Hearing not Adequate Opportunity to Cross Examine for Sixth Amendment Purposes
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
The Law
Who is an “outcry witness?”
An outcry witness is the first adult to whom a child (14 years of age, or younger), or disabled person, tells about being a victim of a statutory designated offense, mostly sexual offenses, as set forth in Article 38.072, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This statute permits a witness to testify about a victim’s out-of-court description of the offense as an “exception” to the hearsay rule.
Rule 801(d), Texas Rules of Evidence, defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement “offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Texas jurisprudence prohibits the use of hearsay unless it falls into one of the designated exceptions set forth in Rules 803 or 804—one of those exceptions being Art. 38.072 outcry testimony. Whether such testimony is admissible at a criminal trial is determined by the Texas Rules of Evidence and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Under Art. 38.072, the State is required, at least 14 days before the trial begins, to provide notice to the defendant of its intention to call an outcry witness, identify the witness, and provide a summary of the outcry statement it intends to offer into evidence. The defendant can request, and the trial court must conduct, a hearing prior to the admission of outcry testimony “to determine whether the outcry statement is reliable based on the time, content, and circumstances of the statement.”
In determining reliability, an indicia of reliability is whether there is evidence of prior prompting or manipulation by an adult (influenced, for example, by bias the outcry witness may have against the defendant). Additional indicia of reliability is whether the outcry witness can, in a discernible manner, describe the alleged offense; and recall the time, content and circumstances of the outcry. The defendant has an indisputable procedural right under Art. 38.072 to explore these issues.
Additionally, there is subtle tension between Texas jurisprudential rules governing hearsay and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, as noted in Sanchez v. State, has held that under Rule 804 (an exception to the hearsay rule dealing with prior testimony) the issue is not whether a defendant had an opportunity for cross examination but whether a party had a “similar motive” for cross-examination at an earlier pre-trial hearing.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, in Crawford v. Washington, distinguished the difference between ”testimonial” and “non-testimonial” hearsay evidence. The Court held that the use of testimonial hearsay in a criminal trial violates the Confrontation Clause unless the party making the statement is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the party. Thus, Crawford endorsed the “opportunity” for cross-examination, not whether the defendant had a “similar motive” for the cross examination. The Court of Criminal Appeals pointed out in Sanchez that although Rule 804 and the Sixth Amendment “may be similar in theme, they are jurisprudentially distinct in both scope and consequence.”
The Sanchez court, however, made it clear that “in order to introduce testimonial hearsay over a Sixth Amendment objection, the State must show that the declarant who made the out-of-court statement is unavailable, and that the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that declarant. ‘That prior opportunity for cross-examination must serve the same function as is normally accorded in adversarial cross-examination in the courtroom during trial: … to test with witness’ perceptions and memory … [and] to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness …’”
The Facts
Ivan William Sanchez was convicted of four counts of indecency with a child by contact and one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child involving his stepdaughter. The State initially provided Sanchez with notice that it intended to use Jennifer Guzman (the victim’s cousin) as its outcry witness. Later, the State noticed Sanchez that it had discovered Guzman was not the first adult to whom she told about the sexual abuse. The State then listed Angelica Newsome and Terry Melendez as its outcry witnesses and provided Sanchez with summaries of their expected testimony. Sanchez filed a motion objecting to the use of two outcry witnesses when Art. 38.072 permitted the use of only one such witness.
The trial court conducted a pre-trial hearing to determine the admissibility of the expected outcry testimony of Newsome and Melendez. The State called two witnesses at the hearing: the victim and Newsome. The victim testified her stepfather, who she had always thought was her biological father, began abusing her when she was nine and continued till she was fourteen, at which time she was able to move out of his household. She said she told her best friend’s mother, Newsome, about the abuse when she was thirteen, describing it as inappropriate touching and rape. Although Newsome was the first adult to whom she out-cried, the victim testified Melendez was in the house when she told Guzman about the abuse.
Newsome told the victim’s mother about the abuse who responded by preventing the victim from seeing Newsome and her daughter. At the pre-trial hearing, Newsome testified the victim was like a “second daughter” to her and that she reported the alleged sexual abuse to Child Protective Services but nothing came of the report. She told the court the victim made the following specific outcry:
She said that her father … picked her up, took her to the other room – she actually told me … she was sleeping with her brothers and sisters in the same room. She was picked up out of that room and taken to another room and raped … she said he got on top of her and put his penis in her. She made it clear in what happened.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the State informed the court that it had been unable to locate Guzman; therefore, it wanted to designate Newsome as it outcry witness. Sanchez’s defense counsel objected to the maneuver, telling the court that Newsome suffered from seizure problems and had a “fuzziness” about the “time, content, and circumstances” of the outcry—both of which limited the court’s ability to determine the reliability of her outcry. The trial denied the objections and accepted Newsome as an outcry witness so requested by the State.
But one month later Newsome, like Guzman, became unavailable to testify at the trial. The State informed the court that Newsome was in the Bexar County jail (without explaining why she had been arrested) and that “someone” had filed a motion for a “psychiatric evaluation” to determine her competency to stand trial.
During opening statement, in a maneuver only an ethically challenged prosecutor would use, and certain trial courts would accept, the State informed the jury that Newsome would take the witness stand and gave jurors a summary of what her expected testimony would include. The State then informed the jury it would call Guzman who would tell the jury that the victim had “opened up” to her by describing what she had been living with since age nine.
No longer “unavailable,” Guzman was the State’s first witness. She told jurors that after seeing an emotional conversation between the victim and victim’s mother in 2005, she offered to take the victim and her twin brother to live with the Guzman family. The victim’s mother signed a document giving Guzman “custodianship” of the twins. The State then offered into evidence two pages of transcribed notes from Guzman’s personal calendar which described the sexual assaults against the victim. Sanchez’s attorney objected, first on grounds of hearsay, and then by telling the court the State was in “a surreptitious way of trying to get outcry testimony introduced, although [Guzman] is not the outcry witness.”
“I don’t need the speeches or lectures,” the trial court responded. “Your objection will be overruled.”
The State then informed the court that Newsome was in a “holding cell” and her attorney, Virginia Maurer, had discussed with prosecutors her ability to testify. The trial court conducted a brief hearing outside the presence of the jury. Maurer told the court that Newsome had been arrested for obtaining drugs by fraud. The attorney said when she told Newsome she would have to testify at Sanchez’s trial, Newsome told her some “famous people” named “OC and AC” were using the jail to “chang[e] her DNA and she’s now half man, half woman.” The trial court found Newsome was “unavailable” to testify at the trial.
The State promptly moved to admit Newsome’s pre-trial hearing testimony from the 38.072 hearing under Texas Rules of Evidence 804(b) (1), because Newsome was unavailable. Sanchez’s defense counsel raised a Sixth Amendment objection. Defense counsel pointed out to the court that while he had cross-examined Newsome at the pre-trial hearing, it was not an adversarial type cross-examination normally conducted during a trial. The trial court overruled the objection. The State read Newsome’s pre-trial hearing testimony to the jury.
Before the case went to the jury, the trial court granted one directed verdict of acquittal on one count of aggravated sexual assault and the State abandoned four counts of aggravated sexual assault. Of the remaining twelve counts, the jury returned five guilty verdicts and seven acquittals. Clearly this case was wrought with problems.
Sanchez received concurrent sentences of 28, 15, 7, 5 and 5 years in prison for his convictions.
Reasons for Reversal
On appeal, the lower appeals court held that Guzman had been used as an improper “outcry witness” but deemed the error harmless because the victim and an investigator testified about the same matters contained in Guzman’s calendar but in more detail and without objection from defense counsel.
The Court of Criminal Appeals had no problem with this finding but its attention was drawn to the issue of whether the reading of Newsome’s pre-trial hearing testimony to the jury violated Sanchez’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers. The appeals court framed the issue as follows:
There are two levels of hearsay before us. First, Newsome testified at the pre-trial hearing regarding what R.F. (the victim) had told her outside the court. Then, at the trial, Newsome’s prior testimony regarding R.F.’s out-of-court statements was read to the jury. Thus, Newsome’s hearsay contained R.F.’s hearsay. When hearsay contains hearsay, the Rules of Evidence require that each party of the combined statements be within an exception to the hearsay rule.
Had Newsome been available for trial, her testimony about what the victim had told her would have been admissible under Art. 38.072. However, she was not available and the use of her prior testimony at the pre-trial hearing was the kind of “testimonial” hearsay condemned by Crawford, and thus was inadmissible. It is well-established in Texas jurisprudence that Art. 38.072 testimony does not violate the Sixth Amendment when the child victim is available for cross-examination. However, in the Sanchez case, the conveyer of the hearsay was available to testify but the recipient was not; thus, the sole issue the Court of Criminal Appeals had to decide was whether Sanchez’s attorney had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Newsome at the pre-trial hearing, allowing an exception to the hearsay rule under 804. The court began its analysis with this preliminary observation:
It is first necessary to appreciate the particular nature of a hearing held under Article 38.072. Every hearing outside the presence of the jury will be limited in scope, but the focus of an Article 38.072 hearing is exceptionally narrow.
The Court of Appeals said that an inquiry into Newsome’s motives and mental state was both possible and appropriate during the Article 38.072 hearing. While we have not issued an opinion describing the scope of Article 38.072 hearings, the Court of Appeals’s holding is at odds with opinions from other courts of appeals. These contrary opinions hold, generally, that the only relevant question at an Article 38.072 hearing is whether, based on the time, content, and circumstances of the outcry, the outcry is reliable.
The court discussed each of those cases without endorsing the holdings in any of them but did point out they “more accurately” reflected the “scope of an Article 38.072” than the State and the lower appeals court wanted to apply in the Sanchez case. As the court pointed out, the purpose of the Art. 38.072 hearing is to test the reliability of the outcry statement while the purpose at a trial is to test is credibility. The court added:
The Court of Appeals believed (and the State argued) that because an indicium of reliability is whether the outcry was prompted or manipulated by adult, evidence of the outcry witness’s biases is relevant at an Article 38.072 hearing. This is not correct. The outcry witness’s biases may be such that a fact-finder would not believe the outcry statement as relayed by the witness, but that is not a matter that the legislature has given to the trial court’s discretion. The same is true of an outcry witness’s ability to remember, which the court below also thought relevant at an Article 38.072 hearing.
If the “circumstances” of the statement had the meaning that the Court of Appeals gave it, Article 38.072 hearings could become elaborate mini-trials in which defendants could cross-examine the outcry witness regarding biases in order to ferret out background evidence of prompting or manipulation. We do not believe Article 38.072 authorizes such a broad-ranging inquiry. The only task it assigns the trial court is to determine whether, based on the time, content, and circumstances of the statement, the outcry is reliable. The trial court would be within its discretion at an Article 38.072 hearing to disallow as irrelevant a line of questioning that addressed the biases or memory of the outcry witness but not the time, content, and circumstances of the outcry.
The court concluded:
Trial courts have great discretion in how they manage their Article 38.072 hearings. However, we do not wish to encourage parties to attempt to elicit irrelevant testimony in order to get impeachment evidence for trial. Our ruling today is meant not only to vindicate defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights, but also to ensure that trial courts decide the reliability of an outcry based only on the time, content, and circumstances of the statement, leaving the determination of the outcry witness’s credibility to the fact-finder at trial.
The court remanded the case back to the appeals court with instructions that it conduct a “harm” analysis of the unconstitutional admission of Newsome’s testimony.
Conclusion
The conduct of the State in the Sanchez case was nothing short of shameful—even borderline close to being prosecutorial misconduct. The State initially noticed Sanchez that Guzman would be its outcry witness. Subsequent to that notice, Guzman disappeared for reasons never fully explained. The State then noticed Sanchez it had designated Newsome as its outcry witness. The record was not fully developed about whether the State “discovered” that Newsome, not Guzman, was the first adult the victim out-cried to before or after Guzman’s disappearance. We suspect this information was readily available to the State before it designated Guzman as the outcry witness.
We further suspect the State did not designate Newsome as its outcry witness from the outset because the State knew she had mental and character issues that made her a less than desirable outcry witness. However, once it became known Guzman was “unavailable” as an outcry witness, the State decided to go with the questionable witness it had, Newsome, and against the clear language of Article 38.072, also designated a backup outcry witness, Melendez.
Significantly the State did not inform the court about Guzman’s unavailability until after the pre-trial hearing and the court had accepted Newsome as the State’s outcry witness.
Suddenly, and again without explanation, Guzman became available for trial. Interestingly, her availability occurred after the State learned Newsome was in jail on drug charges and was suffering from delusions. Despite all this, the State informed the jury it would call Newsome as a witness who would testify the victim told her about the sexual abuse she had experienced by her stepfather.
At that procedural juncture the State knew it was not going to call Newsome to testify; that she was incompetent as a witness. So the State used its opening statement to effectively get Newsome’s testimony before the jury fully knowing it could not produce Newsome as a witness. Worse yet, the State effectively used Guzman as its outcry witness over strenuous objections by Sanchez’s defense attorney.
We believe this was a planned, methodical prosecutorial strategy to get before the jury outcry testimony the State did not have within the meaning of Art. 38.072. Since defense counsel did not make the necessary objections, these issues were foreclosed on appeal. We do not second-guess counsel’s tactical choice. He was in the best position to defend his client. But that does not lessen the State’s shameful conduct in the case. It is exactly this type of questionable strategy and ends justify the means mentality that leads to wrongful convictions and innocent people spending years in prison.
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
John Floyd is Board Certified in Board of Legal Specialization
RULE 804. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS; DECLARANT UNAVAILABLE
(a) Definition of Unavailability. “Unavailability as a witness” includes situations in which the declarant:
(1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement;
(2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the court to do so;
(3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant’s statement;
(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or
(5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of the declarant’s statement has been unable to procure the declarant’s attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means.
A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if the declarant’s exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrong-doing of the proponent of the declarant’s statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.
(b) Hearsay Exceptions. The following are not excluded if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1) Former testimony. In civil cases, testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in the course of another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or a person with a similar interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination. In criminal cases, testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination. In criminal cases the use of depositions is controlled by Chapter 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2) Dying declarations. A statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.
(3) Statement of personal or family history.
(A) A statement concerning the declarant’s own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or
(B) A statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other’s family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.
RULE 805. HEARSAY WITHIN HEARSAY
Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.
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
