Blog
FEDERAL DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES
Tunnel Vision Interferes with Duty to Comply with Discovery Obligations
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Most litigation in federal criminal cases regarding discovery of evidence, or lack thereof, is based on claims of violations of due process protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. These constitutional protections create duties upon the government to disclose to the defendant certain types of evidence that is favorable to the accused because it either questions the defendant’s guilt, exculpatory evidence, or is useful in impeaching a government witness.
There are, however, three federal statutes that create additional duties to disclose certain evidence. Rule 12.1, 16 and 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs “discovery and inspection” in criminal cases. The more often cited Rule 16 specifically provides:
(a) Government’s Disclosure.
(1) Information Subject to Disclosure.
(A) Defendant’s Oral Statement. Upon a defendant’s request, the government must disclose to the defendant the substance of any relevant oral statement made by the defendant, before or after arrest, in response to interrogation by a person the defendant knew was a government agent if the government intends to use the statement at trial.
(B) Defendant’s Written or Recorded Statement. Upon a defendant’s request, the government must disclose to the defendant and make available for inspection, copying, or photographing, all of the following:
(i) any relevant written or recorded statement by the defendant if: the statement is within the government’s possession, custody, or control; and the attorney for the government knows—or through due diligence could know—that the statement exists;
(ii) the portion of any written record containing the substance of any relevant oral statement made before or after if the defendant made the statement in response to interrogation by a person the defendant knew was government agent; and
(iii) the defendant’s recorded testimony before a grand jury relating to the charged offense.
(C) Organizational Defendant. Upon a defendant’s request, if the defendant is an organization, the government must disclose any statement described in Rule 16(a) (1) (A) and (B) if the government contends the person making the statement:
(i) was legally able to find the defendant regarding the subject of the statement because of that person’s position as the defendant’s director, officer, employee, or agent; or
(ii) was personally involved in the alleged conduct constituting the offense and was legally able to bind the defendant regarding that conduct because of that person’s position as the defendant’s director, officer, employee, or agent.
(D) Defendant’s Prior Record. Upon a defendant’s request, the government must furnish the defendant with a copy of the defendant’s prior criminal record that is within the government’s possession, custody, or control if the attorney for the government knows—or through diligence could know—that the record exists.
(E) Documents and Objects. Upon a defendant’s request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items, if the item is within the government’s possession, custody, or control and:
(i) the item is material to preparing the defense;
(ii) the government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or
(iii) the item was obtained from or belongs to the defendant.
(F) Reports of Examinations and Tests. Upon a defendant’s request, the government must permit a defendant to inspect and copy or photograph the results or reports of any physical or mental examination and of any scientific test or experiment if:
(i) the item is within the government’s possession, custody, or control;
(ii) the attorney for the government knows—or through due diligence could know—that the item exists; and
(iii) the item is material to preparing the defense or the government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial.
(G) Expert witnesses. At the defendant’s request, the government must give to the defendant a written summary of any testimony the government intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence during its case-in-chief at trial. If the government requests discovery under subdivision (b) (1) (C) (ii) and the defendant complies, the government must, at the defendant’s request, give to the defendant a written summary of testimony that the government intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as evidence at trial on the issue of the defendant’s mental condition. The summary provided under this subparagraph must describe the witness’s opinions, the bases [sic] and reasons for those opinions, and the witness’s qualifications.
(2) Information Not Subject to Disclosure. Except as Rule 16(a)(1) provides otherwise, this rule does no authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by an attorney for the government or other government connections with investigating or prosecuting the case. Nor does this rule authorize the discovery or inspection of statements made by prospective government witnesses except as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3500.
(3) Grand Jury Transcript. This rule does not apply to the discovery or inspection of a grand jury’s recorded proceedings, except as provided in Rules 6, 12(h), 16(a)(1), and 26.2.
The key word in this legal doublespeak is “material.” Its origin lies in the well-known 1963 Supreme Court decision Brady v. Maryland, which held that a prosecutor under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments has a duty to disclose favorable evidence to defendants upon request, if the evidence is “material” to either guilt or punishment. Two decades later the Supreme Court in United States v. Bagley refined Brady by holding that a prosecutor’s duty to disclose material favorable evidence exists regardless of whether the defendant makes a specific request. The significant difference between Brady/Bagley and Rule 16 (and its cousin Rule 26.2) is the language “upon defendant’s request.”
Bagley, which trumps Rule 16 AND 26.2, eliminated the “upon defendant’s request,” although it remains standard “practice” in federal cases for defense attorneys to submit a “letter” to the Government requesting discovery shortly after indictment. This practice is in compliance with “standing orders” in federal district courts requiring the Government to comply with defense discovery requests.
The flaw in this practice is that it permits Assistant U.S. Attorneys (as well as state prosecutors) to determine on their own what evidence may or may not be “material” and, thus, subject to disclosure. The Bagley court defined “material favorable evidence” as any evidence which probably would have changed the outcome of the trial. From a pure constitutional perspective, that is all that is required of federal and state prosecutors to fulfill their discovery obligations.
Evidence that may assist the defendant in preparing a defense is not subject to disclosure if the prosecutor determines it is not material. This prosecutorial disclosure process was given additional constitutional cover by the Supreme Court in 1999 in Strickler v. Greene, which held that a Brady violation occurs when: (1) evidence is favorable to exculpation or impeachment; (2) the evidence is either willfully or inadvertently withheld by the prosecution; and (3) the withholding of the evidence is prejudicial to the defendant.
Thus, a prosecutor knows that his/her decision to withhold evidence, even if it is “material favorable evidence,” is subject to reversal in the post-conviction setting only if it is “prejudicial” to the defendant. That gives prosecutors a lot of “wiggle room” in the Rule 16 and 26.2 decision-making process. And, as a consequence, the knowing suppression/withholding of favorable material evidence has become a constitutional cancer in our legal system which has wrongfully convicted thousands of innocent people—and in many of those cases federal and state prosecutors knew it was likely that the defendant was innocent of the crime charged.
The Supreme Court in 2009 indicated in Cone v. Bell that it was aware of the cancer Strickler had produced. The court observed, without specifically holding, that a prosecutor’s pre-trial obligations to disclose favorable or impeaching evidence, either to guilt or punishment, “may arise more broadly under a prosecutor’s ethical or statutory obligations” than required by the Brady/Bagley post-conviction “materiality” standard of review. The Cone court distinguished the post-conviction setting where the reviewing court must make a constitutional determination of whether the withheld evidence is material to the prosecutor’s pre-trial broader ethical obligations to disclose, which requires a “prudent prosecutor [to] err on the side of transparency, resolving doubtful questions in favor of disclosure.”
The question of whether a prosecutor’s pre-trial ethical obligation to disclose, grounded in Rule 3.8(d) of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, trumps the post-conviction “materiality” analysis required by Brady/Begley was presented before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Smith v. Cain. In an amicus curiae brief, the ABA is urging the Court to follow its own lead in Cone v. Bell:
“By requiring prosecutors to disclose more than material exculpatory evidence, the ABA Model Rules seek to avoid pitfalls that might arise if a prosecutor attempts to determine materiality before making a disclosure. As commentators have highlighted, assessing materiality pre-trial requires prosecutors to ‘anticipate what the other evidence against the defendant will be by the end of trial, and then speculate in hypothetical hindsight whether the evidence at issue would place the whole case in a different light’ … In addition, ‘compared to a neutral decision maker, the prosecutor will overestimate the strength of the government’s case against the defendant and underestimate the potential exculpatory value of the evidence whose disclosure is at issue.
As a consequence, the prosecutor will fail to see materiality where in fact it might exist ‘ … ‘Tunnel vision has had an obvious impact in the pretrial stage: having formed an initial judgment that a particular defendant is guilty of a crime, prosecutors and police will tend to discredit or discount the significance of new exculpatory evidence or fit it into their preexisting theory.’”
This raises the interesting question at the federal level: what are the duties of U.S. Attorneys to disclose under Rule 16 and 26.2?
On January 4, 2010, then Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden issued a “memorandum” for U.S. Justice Department prosecutors titled “Guidance for Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery,” more commonly known as the “Ogden Memo” (Memo). This Memo was developed “by a working group of experienced attorneys with expertise regarding criminal discovery issues that included attorneys from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the United States Attorneys’ Office, the Criminal Division, and the National Security Division.”
The Memo details a four-step process federal prosecutors must utilize to fulfill their discovery requirements under Rule 16 and 26.2 as well as under the Jencks Act. The steps are:
Step 1: Gathering and Reviewing Discoverable Information
Step 1 is cordoned off into two subsections: Where to look and what to review. At the onset prosecutors are reminded that Justice Department policy provides: “It is the obligation of federal prosecutors, in preparing for trial, to seek all exculpatory and impeachment information from all members of the prosecution team. Members of the prosecution team include federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and other government officials participating in the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case against the defendant.”
The Memo instructs that a determination of whether to review “potentially discoverable information” can be difficult, especially in cases involving multi-district investigations that include U.S. attorneys from different district and other prosecutors from the different sections of the Department. The difficulty is enhanced when a case involves parallel criminal and civil investigations, sometimes requiring prosecutors to redefine the parameters of disclosure in order to “fit the circumstances” of each case. There are also complex cases involving investigations with other government agencies, such as the SEC, FDIC, or EPA in which the prosecutor must determine “whether the relationship with the other agency is close enough to make it part of the prosecution team for discovery purposes.” This determination should be based on consideration of the following factors:
A) Whether the prosecutor and the agency conducted a joint investigation or shared resources related to the investigation of the case;
B) Whether the agency played an active role in the prosecution, including conducting arrests or searches, interviewing witnesses, developing prosecutorial strategy, participating in targeting discussions, or otherwise acting as part of the prosecution team;
C) Whether the prosecutor knows of and has access to discoverable information held by the agency;
D) Whether the prosecutor has obtained other information and/or evidence from the agency;
E) The degree to which information gathered by the prosecutor has been shared with the agency;
F) Whether a member of an agency had been made a Special Assistant United States Attorney;
G) The degree to which decisions have been made jointly regarding civil, criminal, or administrative charges; and
H) The degree to which the interests of the parties in parallel proceedings diverge such that information gathered by one party is not relevant to the other party.
Quite often these kinds of multi-district, multi-agency investigations involve federal “task forces” or state law enforcement agencies. In these cases, prosecutors should consider:
1) Whether state or local agents are working on behalf of the prosecutor or are under the prosecutor’s control;
2) The extent to which state and federal governments are part of a team, are participating in a joint investigation, or are sharing resources; and
3) Whether the prosecutor has ready access to the evidence.
This is a broad ocean of information federal prosecutors must navigate to locate potentially reviewable evidence upon which a “materiality” determination can be made. The Memo encourages prosecutors “err on the side of inclusiveness” with “carefully considered efforts to locate discoverable information” in order to “avoid future [Brady] litigation” and to “avoid surprises at trial.”
The Memo further instructs that in order to satisfy the “what to review” and timely disclosures requirements, prosecutors should review “all potentially discoverable material within the custody and control of the prosecution.” This “review process” should include the following areas:
1) The investigative agency files;
2) Confidential informant (CI)/witness (CW)/Human Source (CHS)/Source (CS) files;
3) Evidence and information gathered during the investigation;
4) Documents or evidence gathered by civil attorneys and/or regulatory agency in parallel civil investigations;
5) Substantive case-related communications;
6) Potential Giglio [v. United States] information relating to law enforcement witnesses;
7) Potential Giglio information relating to non-law enforcement witnesses and Fed.R.Evid. 806 declarants; and
8) Information obtained during witness interviews, including variations in witness statements; trial preparation meetings with witnesses; and agent notes.
The Memo describes the “Giglio information” cited in areas seven and eight as follows:
a) Prior inconsistent statements, which may include “inconsistent attorney proffers.”
b) Statements or reports reflecting variations in a witness’s statements.
c) Benefits provided to witnesses which includes but it not limited to: dropped or reduced charges; immunity; expectations of downward departures or motions for reduction of sentence; assistance in a state or local criminal proceeding; considerations regarding forfeiture of assets; stays of deportation or other immigration status considerations; S-Visas; monetary benefits; non-prosecution agreements; letters to other law enforcement officials, such as state prosecutors or parole boards, setting forth the extent of a witness’s assistance or making substantive recommendations on the witness’s behalf; relocation assistance; and/or consideration or benefits to culpable or at risk third parties.
d) Other known conditions that could affect a witness’s bias, such as: animosity toward the defendant; animosity toward a group of which the defendant is a member or with which the defendant is affiliated; relationship with victim; and/or known but uncharged criminal conduct.
e) Prior acts under Fed.R.Evid. 608.
f) Prior convictions under Fed.R.Evid. 609.
g) Known substance abuse or mental health issues or other issues that could affect the witness’s ability to perceive and recall events.
Step 2: Conducting the Review
The Memo provides that after prosecutors have gathered the above cited information, they must “ensure that the information is reviewed to identify discoverable information.” While the Memo suggests the information should be reviewed by the prosecutor in charge of the case, such is “not always feasible or necessary.” Thus, the prosecutor in charge “should develop a process for review of pertinent information to ensure that discoverable information is identified. Because the responsibility for compliance with discovery obligation rests with the prosecutor, the prosecutor’s decision about how to conduct this review is controlling. This process may involve agents, paralegals, agency counsel, and computerized searches. Although prosecutors may delegate the process and set forth criteria for identifying potentially discoverable information, prosecutors should not delegate the disclosure determination itself.”
3. Making the Disclosures
There are five statutory and case law sources outlining the Justice Department’s “obligations” to disclose either favorable or impeachment evidence: Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 and 26.2, the Jencks Act [18 U.S.C. § 3500], Brady, and Giglio. The Memo states that the Justice Department’s disclosure policy regarding exculpatory or impeachment evidence is “broader” than the disclosure obligations mandated by these five sources. The Memo added that prosecutors “are also encouraged to provide discovery broader and more comprehensive than discovery obligations” mandated by these five sources. However, if a prosecutor elects to strictly follow the “broader” Department discovery policy, he/she should advise the defense that “the prosecutor is electing to produce discovery beyond what is required under the circumstances of the case but is not committing to any discovery obligation” beyond the obligations set forth above.
The “broader” Department discovery policy, according to the Memo, “promotes the truth-seeking mission of the Department and fosters a speedy resolution of many cases. It is also provides a margin of error in case the prosecutor’s good faith determination of the scope of appropriate discovery is in error.”
4. Making a Record
The Memo is quite clear and concise about this step: “One of the most important steps in the discovery process is keeping good records regarding disclosures. Prosecutors should make a record of when and how information is disclosed or otherwise made available. While discovery matters are often subject to litigation in criminal cases, keeping a record of the disclosures confines the litigation to substantive matters and avoids time-consuming disputes about what was disclosed. These records can also be critical when responding to petitions for post-conviction relief, which are often filed long after the trial of the case. Keeping accurate records of the evidence disclosed is no less important than the other steps discussed above, and poor records can negate all of the work that went into taking the first three steps.”
Last year we posted a piece about prosecutorial misconduct among federal prosecutors. We cited a report by USA Today that during a six-month investigation the newspaper documented 201 cases since 1997 in which federal judges had determined U.S. attorneys, “the nation’s most elite and powerful law enforcement officials,” either violated the law or ethical rules in the prosecution of cases. One case concerned Orlando, Florida businessman named Nino Lyons who spent three years in prison because federal prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense.
“… the prosecutors covered up evidence that could have discredited many of Lyons’ accusers,” USA Today reported. “They never revealed that a convict who claimed to have purchased hundreds of pounds of cocaine from Lyons struggled even to identify his photograph. And they hid the fact that prosecutors had promised to let others out of prison early in exchange for their cooperation.”
The Ogden Discovery Memo has now been in place for two years. We do not know to what extent the Memo has curbed misconduct among federal prosecutors. We believe it has curtailed some of the more serious misconduct, but, sadly, we know there are a significant number of other U.S. attorneys still walking into courtrooms, swearing to the high heavens with straight faces that they have fulfilled their “discovery obligations” while their briefcases and files are contain potentially “material” favorable evidence.
NOTE: The U.S. Supreme Court on January 10, 2012 decided Smith v. Cain. While the court reversed the conviction, it did not address the pre-trial ethical obligations required under Model Rule 3.8(d) so aggressively urged by the ABA. In fact, there was not a single mention of the Model Rule 3.8(d) requirement. The reversal was based purely on the Brady post-conviction analysis. We will discuss Smith v. Cain in greater depth in our next post.
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
John Floyd is Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
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
