Blog
FEDERAL PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT: CONVICT AT ANY COSTS
Reversal Warranted Only if Prosecutor’s Misconduct Cast Serious Doubt on Jury’s Verdict, Prejudicially Affect Substantial Rights of the Defendant
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
In our prior post, we discussed a Texas case which reflects why there is little, if any, systemic or meaningful judicial oversight of prosecutorial misconduct. The case of Maria Aide Delgado offers a glimpse at how the Federal appellate system—at least in the Fifth Circuit—deals with prosecutorial misconduct. This case offers little encouragement that Federal appellate courts will ever have the legal and ethical fortitude to address the cancer of prosecutorial misconduct head-on. Either excusing or ignoring the misconduct seems to be the prevailing judicial view.
On September 11, 2006, Delgado gave Federal customs officers consent to search her residence located near Weslaco, Texas. The agents found 230 kilograms of marijuana inside a locked tractor-trailer parked at the residence. Delgado was subsequently indicted and convicted of (1) possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and (2) conspiracy to possess/distribute the marijuana. She was sentenced to 100 months on each count.
Delgado was the sole owner-operator of TJ Trucking. She frequently hired drivers to transport Mexican produce from Laredo, Texas throughout the United States. She ran the business by phone from a home office. She did not drive the trucks nor accompany drivers on their long hauls.
One of the drivers Delgado frequently contracted with was a Mexican legal resident named Bartolome Vasquez who was regularly employed by a Laredo produce broker and shipper. This produce broker often arranged shipments of Mexican produce through TJ Trucking. These arrangements brought Vasquez into frequent contact with Delgado, either my phone or in person.
And this is where the Federal case against Delgado originated. Vasquez testified at Delgado’s trial that he had always considered her “a legitimate trucking business operator” until September 8, 2006 when Delgado out of the clear blue offered him $10,000 to transport bundles of marijuana with a shipment of Mexican broccoli to North Carolina. Vasquez reportedly refused to accept the offer and instead reported it to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The truck driver testified he knew he might receive a “reward” for the information because he had done snitching business on two prior occasions in which received remuneration from ICE for information. In the Delgado case, Vasquez was given a $7,500 “reward” from ICE for the information about her alleged drug smuggling proposal.
With the reward money in hand, Vasquez returned to Delgado and agreed to do the “shipment” for her. He began secretly recording his telephone conversations with Delgado about how the drug shipment would be done. All these conversations were in Spanish and seem to reflect general discussions about regular produce shipments—nothing about illegal drugs. Vasquez explained away the innocent nature of the conversations by saying he and Delgado were speaking in “code” to disguise the proposed marijuana shipment. Of course, as is often the case with paid informants, he was the only one who knew the “code.” That was good enough for the ICE investigators who on September 11, 2006 concocted a plan with their snitch to get Delgado to send her marijuana-laden truck to an ICE-controlled warehouse in Laredo where the officers planned to make arrests and seize the drugs.
However, according to Vasquez, Delgado called the informant on September 11 and cancelled the shipment, reportedly telling him that the individual who was supposed to receive the marijuana in North Carolina had been arrested. Neither the ICE investigators nor Government prosecutors ever learned who the mysterious North Carolina buyer was; and, in fact, never learned how Delgado came into possession of the marijuana. Wanting to protect his reward dough, Vasquez informed ICE about Delgado’s change in plans, telling investigators the marijuana was in the tractor-trailer parked at her residence. No evidence was ever revealed how Vasquez knew the marijuana was in the semi-trailer.
This was the situation a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals confronted when they heard Delgado’s appeal. On January 19, 2011, two of those judges found that Vasquez’s version of the events highly suspect—so much so that they voted to reverse Delgado’s conviction and remand the case for a new trial. The majority opinion stated:
“There are some discrepancies or oddities in the record that tend to detract from the reliability of Vasquez’s testimony. Although he was over 50 years old, had lived in the United States most of his life, and had taken three years of college-level English, he required the assistance of an interpreter in his testimony. Although the government’s opening statement described Delgado’s alleged promise to pay Vasquez $10,000 as being conditioned upon the marijuana-laced produce shipment clearing inspection and ‘get[ting] it past law enforcement,’ Vasquez’s testimony relates no such conditions. Further, Vasquez testified that Delgado said she planned to try to return the marijuana, but did not say how, where, or to whom; nor did he otherwise indicate that she would be successful in that attempt.
“On September 11, 2006, a dozen or so ICE officers from Laredo and McAllen converged on Delgado’s house near Weslaco at about 2 p.m. They could see the truck described by Vasquez parked inside the locked fence. Delgado initially did not respond to the officers for about 30 minutes; she then opened her door and, after being informed that the officers were checking out a marijuana tip, agreed to allow them into her property for a search. She voluntarily opened her closet and safe, where the officers found three handguns and a shotgun. They also seized her cell phone, computer, and business papers and records. But she claimed she did not have a key to the truck; she said that only the driver had the key and she did not havehis phone number. An officer with a drug-sniffing dog arrived, and Delgado allowed the dog to traverse her property inside and out and around the semi-trailer rig. The dog did not alert on anything. Some of the officers terminated their search as fruitless at this point, but others persisted. After unsuccessfully trying to open the rig’s cab with keys from Delgado’s office, an officer obtained her permission to do anything he could, without breaking anything, to get in. He ultimately was able to unlock the cab door with a coat hanger and discovered 230 kilograms of marijuana hidden in the sleeper compartment. Another officer searched a large room inside the house where several large dogs were tied up; he was bitten once by one of the dogs. The officer found a number of aluminum wrappers inside a trash bag with what the officers believed was marijuana residue. Delgado told the officers that she thought it was potting soil that her house and garden worker, Peter (or Pedro), had brought in.
“A chemist’s test, introduced by stipulation, determined that the bundles found in the truck were marijuana. But no such test was introduced to scientifically identify the residue found in the wrappers in the house or link it to the bundles of marijuana found in the truck. Only a photo of the wrappers was introduced at trial. Although the officers immediately seized the marijuana bundles, the wrappers with residue, Delgado’s computer and cell phone, and her business and banking records and papers, they did not immediately seize the truck. Delgado was not arrested until October 19, 2006, nearly a month after the search and seizures. Although officers testified that they had located Peter — the house and garden worker — and one officer reported seeing Delgado’s ex-husband at her house on a later date, neither of these possible witnesses testified at trial. Evidently, the officers were unable to develop any evidence of illegal drug activity by Delgado from her cell phone, computer, and business, financial and banking records, because none was introduced at trial. The questions of whether other persons were involved with Delgado in the TJ Trucking business, whether other members of her family resided in her house, and the identity of the registered owner of the truck, were not explored or answered at trial. Further, the officers did not attempt to develop fingerprint evidence from the wrappers with residue, the bundles of marijuana, or the sleeper cab of the truck, to link them to Delgado or anyone else. The government introduced no evidence identifying the supplier of the marijuana or the prospective recipient in North Carolina. The evidence provided no indication of the nature or extent of Delgado’s relationship, if any, with the supplier or the prospective recipient of the marijuana.
“Albert Aguilar, who lived in Weslaco near Delgado’s house, worked as TJ Trucking’s driver for some ten months before the ICE officers seized the rig when he drove it to Laredo on September 13, 2006. He testified that he was the only driver operating the truck during that period. He denied having any knowledge of contraband or drug activity involving the truck. He testified that he drove loads of produce for Delgado and TJ Trucking almost weekly from Laredo to points throughout the United States. He said that he was paid about $1,200 to $1,400 per week or trip, and thatbetween trips he always parked the truck at Delgado’s house, locked the cab, and left the key with Delgado. He said he knew of only one key to the truck.
“Regarding the week before the officers’ discovery of marijuana in the truck on September 11, 2006, Aguilar testified he picked up a load of pork in Omaha, Nebraska and headed back to Texas. On September 7, 2006, he arrived in Weslaco, parked the truck at Delgado’s house, locked the cab and left the key with Delgado, and went home. On September 8, 2006, he said, he picked up the truck at her house and drove the load of pork to Hidalgo, Texas, where the pork was unloaded. Then he recounted that he went to Edinburg, Texas to drop off the bill of lading at the broker’s office. From there he took the truck to a shop for mechanical work in Donna, Texas, where he left it and the keys. He testified that at that time there was no marijuana in the vehicle. On September 13, 2006, Delgado called him at his home, told him about the officers’ search of the truck on September 11, 2006 — but assured him the truck was now ‘clean’ — and asked him to pick up a new load in Laredo. Delgado met him with the truck at a tire shop where they put air into the tires. After that, on September 13, 2006, he drove the truck to Laredo, where it was seized by the ICE officers. Because the truck was left at the mechanic’s shop in Donna, Texas on September 8, 2006, and there was no evidence tracing its movements or its contents between that date and September 11, 2006, the mechanic shop personnel and perhaps others had access to the rig and could have cached the marijuana inside during the three days before the agents’ search of it on September 11. The government did not introduce any evidence as to the number or identity of the other persons who had access to the truck during that interval. As to Aguilar himself, the government did not introduce any evidence to corroborate his testimony, such as witnesses to verify his whereabouts and activities prior to the drug search and seizure or to confirm that his cell phone, banking, and financial records showed no signs of involvement in illicit drug activity.”
That was the Government’s case against Delgado, and it was enough for Government prosecutors to convince a jury to accept their “conspiracy” theory that Delgado was a member in a “large-scale illegal drug operation.” It is indeed a Federal offense when two or more people conspire to commit a crime against the United States, even if the objectives of the crime are not achieved. The Government’s entire “conspiracy” case rested the testimony of a paid informant who said there was an “agreement” between him and Delgado to possess and distribute the marijuana to North Carolina. That flimsy evidence is hardly enough to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the paid snitch was a bona fide co-conspirator with Delgado, much less that she was the member of a “large-scale illegal drug operation.” The Government’s only evidence of the alleged conspiracy was Vasquez who, in repeated taped telephone conversations, could not get Delgado to say anything that remotely indicated she was involved in a drug-smuggling operation.
Federal law defines a “conspiracy” as a criminal partnership, and in order to prove a specific drug conspiracy, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following two elements: 1) That two or more people agreed to distribute and possessed with an intent to distribute drugs; and 2) That the charged defendant joined an agreement or conspiracy with the knowledge that its objective was to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute the drugs. Thus the two prerequisites of a conspiracy are “agreement” and “knowledge.”
So how did the Government prosecutors prove these two essential prerequisites against Delgado? As is too often the case in large scale drug prosecutions in which the Government cannot make its case through honorable prosecutorial conduct (surveillance videos, incriminating recordings, official undercover agents, documents, etc.), prosecutors will resort to the old “convict at any costs” prosecutorial misconduct tactic. And that is exactly what Government prosecutors did in Delgado’s case: it pulled an ace from under the table to secure a winning “full house” hand. That was the conclusion of Fifth Circuit Judges James L. Dixon and Jacques Loeb Wiener, Jr. in Delgado’s case: that the Government prosecutors engaged in calculated misconduct with highly improper and prejudicial comments in their closing argument and by personally vouching for the credibility of the ICE paid informant.
Judge Dixon, who wrote the opinion, summed up the Government’s case as follows: marijuana was found concealed in a tractor-trailer owned by Delgado’s company, the semi-trailer rig was parked on her property, and a paid informant said she planned to ship the marijuana to North Carolina. Against this factual backdrop, Government prosecutors knew their case was legally tenuous at best so they decided to improperly express their personal opinions s about Delgado’s involvement in the conspiracy in order to create the impression that they had “outside knowledge” the marijuana found in the semi-tractor trailer belonged to Delgado and her non-involvement defense lacked “credibility.”
The problem with this prosecutorial tactic is that Delgado did not testify at trial, and, in fact, her defense counsel did not call a single defense witness. The defense had never made Delgado’s “credibility” an issue at the trial; its defense rested exclusively on the premise that Government prosecutors had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This defense was stressed in defense counsel’s closing argument when he told jurors that Delgado had fully cooperated with the ICE officers when they arrived at her residence to conduct their search; that she had nothing to hide; and that Vasquez lacked credibility because he was a paid informant. That was the heart and soul of her defense.
In rebuttal, Government prosecutors abandoned the normal rules of professional conduct by pursuing a “convict at any costs” strategy. One prosecutor told jurors that Vasquez was indeed credible because he was not a “permanent snitch” and that Delgado had lied to investigating officers even though she had not testified at trial that she had been truthful with the officers. The prosecutor argued: “Talk about motive to lie, ladies and gentlemen. Who has the motive to lie here? The driver? No. He’s working all around. Mr. Vasquez. No. He’s in Laredo. He’s not a permanent snitch. He’s not one of those individuals that makes his living off providing information. He’s provided it twice in the past. The agents? You’re going to blame the agents for all this? Whose [sic] got the motive to lie here? It’s the defendant,and she’s done so. She did so to these agents.”
Defense counsel immediately objected but did not request a curative instruction, and the court on its own did not give one to the jury. Both should have been done.
Longstanding case law has held that a prosecutor cannot express to the jury his personal opinion about the credibility of either witnesses or the defendant. Closing argument by a Government prosecutor should be used only “to assist the jury in analyzing, evaluating and applying the evidence.” When a Government prosecutor expresses a personal opinion to the jury about a witness or defendant, he effectively increases the “probative value” of their credibility or lack thereof because it implies a “presumably superior knowledge of the facts and background of the case.” Most prosecutors are particularly aware of and honor the rule that it is “improper and highly inappropriate” to interject his/her personal opinion about a defendant’s “veracity.”
But, as Judge Dixon pointed out: “ … the prosecutor in [Delgado’s] case did [express his personal opinion]. The prosecutor expressly attacked Delgado’s credibility and opined that she had lied, stating that ‘she’s done so. She did so to these agents’ … [and] the prosecutor did not limit his argument to the evidence: he went one step further and told the jury that Delgado had lied, an expression of opinion regarding fact and credibility that is not properly the subject of an attorney’s closing argument. By effectively calling Delgado a liar and declaring she had lied to investigating governmental agents, the prosecutor threw the weight of his own credibility as a representative of the United States behind hispersonal opinion– giving his personal opinions ‘much weight … when they should properly carry none.’”
Some would say that defense counsel’s closing argument invited the Government prosecutor’s comments by telling jurors Delgado had fully cooperated with the authorities. Not so, said Judge Dixon: “Further exacerbating the improper argument’s prejudicial effect is that defense counsel’s closing argument neither provoked nor invited the prosecutor’s misconduct … Defense counsel did not improperly bolster his client’s credibility – he argued only that the evidence that she had consented to the search of the property and the tractor-trailer supported the inference that she had no knowledge of the drugs. Nor did defense counsel question the credibility of the governmental agents. Rather, he argued only that they conducted a less-than-thorough investigation. As to Vasquez and Aguilar, defense counsel noted that their testimonyleft a number of questions unanswered, and questioned whether they had actually played some larger role in the offense. He never argued that they had affirmatively lied in their testimony or in their out-of-court conduct. Thus, viewed in the context in which he made the statements, the prosecutor intended his argument to serve as a highly prejudicial injection of his personal opinion, and not merely as a response to defense counsel’s arguments.”
More damning and more to the heart of the prosecutorial misconduct issue is Judge Dixon’s conclusion that “while wrongfullyattacking Delgado’s credibility, the prosecutor improperly bolstered the credibility of the Government’s key witness, Vasquez. The prosecutor, immediately before stating that Delgado had lied, also told the jury that Vasquez [was] ‘not a permanent snitch. He’s not one of those individuals that makes his living providing information.’ ‘When a prosecutor vouches for government witnesses, it provides the witnesses with the ‘imprimatur of the Government, and may induce the jury to trust the Government’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.’”Here, the prosecutor’s characterization of Vasquez as ‘not a permanent snitch’ carried the implication that he was giving the jury inside information about the nature of Vasquez’s relationship with the government. The prosecutor thus multiplied the prejudicial effect of his misconduct by contrasting and juxtaposing his improper bolstering of Vasquez’s credibility with his wrongful attack on Delgado’s credibility.”
The primary and most fundamental issue which cannot be escaped in the Delgado case, much less explained away with any rational explanation, is the fact that “knowledge” was an essential element Government prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in both the offenses Delgado had been charged with. Lacking any credible evidence with which to establish the prerequisite “knowledge,” Government prosecutors elected to use highly improper and prejudicial arguments to the jury to impute this “knowledge” to Delgado.
Judge Edith Jones Clement, however, did not agree with Judges Dixon and Wiener—and her dissent probably encouraged the Government to seek, and secure,en banchearing before seventeen Fifth Circuit judges. On February 22, 2012, fourteen of those judges reversed the decision rendered by Judges Dixon and Wiener. At the outset theen bancpanel stressed that there had been “more than sufficient evidence” to support Delgado’s conspiracy conviction. This position defies the simple fact that the only partnership, the only agreement to support a drug conspiracy came from the paid informant. The Government never identified either the source of the marijuana or the North Carolina purchaser.
As for the prosecutorial misconduct issue relative to improper jury arguments by Government prosecutors calling Delgado a liar, theen bancpanel excused this away by saying the prosecutor’s charge that Delgado lied on one “particular occasion” was not tantamount to calling her a “liar.” Please don’t make us repeat that. That’s exactly what theen bancpanel concluded: saying someone lied on one particular occasion is not the same as calling that person a “liar.” Theen bancpanel reasoned that the prosecutor’s lying accusation was just “an inference drawn from specific evidence, not an attack on Delgado’s character.”
Then theen bancpanel added this justification for its bizarre “liar” conclusion: “Contrary to Delgado’s suggestion, the contested statement included no indication that the prosecutor was trying to sway the jury by stating his personal opinion, and it certainly did not imply that he was relying on information that was not admitted into evidence. While the prosecutor should have chosen his words more carefully, his argument differs from improper argument in that its meaning and effect would have been no different had he simply added the words ‘As I’ve explained, the evidence shows’ before stating that Delgado had lied … Moreover, even if the comment was inappropriate, it certainly does not merit reversal of Delgado’s convictions.”
Okay. If Delgado’s prosecutors did engage in misconduct, then when is it appropriate to reverse a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct? Theen bancpanel answered that question this way: “>Overturning a jury verdict for prosecutorial misconduct is appropriate only when, ‘taken as a whole in the context of the entire case,’ the prosecutor’s comments ‘prejudicially affect[ed the] substantial rights of the defendant.’ In determining whether the defendant’s substantial rights were affected, we consider three factors: ‘(1) the magnitude of the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remarks, (2) the efficacy of any cautionary instruction by the judge, and (3) the strength of the evidence supporting the conviction.’ ‘If the evidence to support a conviction is strong, then it is unlikely that the defendant was prejudiced by improper arguments of the prosecutor and reversal is not required.’”
Put simply, prosecutorial misconduct is excused when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt because “a criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor’s comments standing alone.” Citing its longstanding rule, theen bancpanel added that “’for prosecutorial misconduct to warrant a new trial, it must be so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’”
As we have pointed out before, some courts have in effect held that there is misdemeanor prosecutorial misconduct and felony prosecutorial misconduct—and misdemeanor conduct will never result in a reversal of conviction under any circumstances. Theen bancpanel applied this reasoning to the prosecutorial misconduct utilized to convict Delgado and earn her a 100-month sentence in a Federal penal facility:
“Specifically as to the knowledge element of the charged offenses, the government presented overwhelming evidence: Vasquez’s testimony, which we must credit, provided extensive direct evidence of Delgado’s knowledge that was corroborated by virtually every type of circumstantial evidence, including the uncontradicted evidence that the truck was under Delgado’s exclusive control when it was loaded with more than 500 pounds of marijuana.”
In other words, the 500 pounds of weed found in a truck parked near Delgado’s residence and Vasquez’s ICE-purchased testimony, is “overwhelming evidence” that Delgado was a member of a “large-scale illegal drug operation.”
We believe theen bancpanel decision in the Delgado case is just a renewal of the long held license for Government prosecutors to engage in pretty much any kind of highly prejudicial and inflammatory closing arguments they deem “appropriate” and necessary to secure convictions. Worse yet, we feel it delivers a warning to lower court Federal judges that the conservative appeals court will not tolerate these trying to tackle and prevent prosecutorial misconduct. It is terribly disturbing to think that this horrific decision, and a 110-month term in prison, rests at the doorstep of a paid snitch. The continued used of paid informants, especially along the borderlands with Mexico, tucks the government further in bed with the official corruption which is epidemic in American cities caught in the crosshairs of the war on drugs.
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
John Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law 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
