Blog
LITTLE OR NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
State Argues Failure to Preserve Brady Violation Waives Claims of Innocence
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John T. Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Barry Scheck is co-director of the New York-based Innocence Project —“a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent injustice.” As of May 7, 2012, there have been 290 DNA exonerations in this country, and Scheck has been personally involved in many of them. His name and reputation have become synonymous with fighting “wrongful convictions,” such as the case of Michael Morton who was wrongfully convicted in 1987for murdering his wife and spent nearly 25 years in the Texas prison system before Scheck and others managed to establish his innocence.
On May 6, 2012, theAustin Statesmanpublished an articlewritten by Scheck who lamented the tragic fact that “our system rarely disciplines, much less brings criminal charges against, prosecutors who have engaged in acts of intentional misconduct.” This is an issue we have discussed, and lamented about ourselves, in a number of previous posts.
Pointing out that most district attorney offices are either incapable or unwilling to hold rogue prosecutors accountable for intentional misconduct, Scheck also observed that: “Similarly, relying on judicial monitoring and reporting has been a failure. In California, where judges are required by law to report prosecutorial misconduct to the State Bar when it results in reversal of a conviction, a study by the Veritas Initiative shows that over a 10-year period involving 159 reversals, not one case was referred by judges to the State Bar.”
And why has “judicial monitoring and reporting” been such an abject failure. An analysis of the case of Jackie Russell Keeter will provide some insight.
In May 1998, Keeter lived with his partner Eva, their three small children, his father, a babysitter, and Eva’s 8-year-old daughter, J.K., by a previous relationship. One day J.K.’s father, Travis, and his fiancée, Rhonda, arrived unannounced at the Keeter residence asking permission to take J.K. to their home for a summer visit. Eva was not present at the residence when Travis and Rhonda arrived, so Keeter granted the couple permission to take the child out to eat until Eva returned. While dining out, J.K. told her father and Rhonda that Keeter had been molesting her on an almost daily basis, and, in fact, had molested her the day before. Child Protective Services and the sheriff’s department were called and Keeter was indicted on two counts of indecency with a child.
J.K. testified at Keeter’s subsequent trial that the sexual abuse occurred mostly in the afternoon when Eva was away from the residence. Keeter, however, presented defense witnesses who testified it would have been virtually impossible for the sexual abuse to have occurred at the time or manner described by J.K. because Keeter was either away from the residence or someone else was there with him. He worked from 6:00 a.m. till 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., and, in fact, was only at home when Travis and Rhonda arrived because he had been sick in bed for a day and a half. There was no forensic evidence to link Keeter to the abuse. The only evidence against him was the 8-year-old J.K.’s testimony. Keeter’s defense was that J.K. had lied about the sexual abuse allegations out of spite because her mother had told the child she could not spend the summer with her father. Despite the highly suspect evidence against him, Keeter was convicted by a Hamilton County jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. A child’s testimony about sexual abuse almost always trumps logic and reason in Texas, leading to many miscarriages of justice.
Several weeks after the trial, Travis returned J.K. to Eva, telling his former partner that the child had become unmanageable and that he and Rhonda were no longer getting along because of the child’s misbehavior. Later that day J.K. told Eva she had made up the entire sexual abuse story because, as the defense had alleged, she was “mad” because Eva would not let her spend the summer with Travis. The child told her mother, “I lied … I wanted to go and stay with daddy and you wouldn’t let me.”
Accompanied by Travis and Rhonda, Eva immediately took J.K. to Keeter’s defense attorney at which time the child gave the attorney a signed affidavit recanting all the sexual abuse allegations she had made against Keeter. Travis and Rhonda also told the attorney that they had never believed J.K.’s allegations, and, in fact, had told the prosecution they thought the child was lying.
Defense counsel promptly filed a motion for a new trial, raising two issues: J.K.’s recantation and the prosecution withholding victim impeachment evidence given to it by Travis and Rhonda, both of which violated Keeter’s due process right to a fair and impartial trial. At a subsequent hearing on the motion, Rhonda testified she never believed J.K.’s accusations because she “kept changing her story one too many times … She will say he did it, then if we asked – talked about it, she’d say he didn’t do it or I never said that. She just wasn’t consistent with her story.” Although she admitted her relationship with J.K. was not good, Rhonda explained: “I was not going to tolerate her lying, being dishonest, being disrespectful to other people … I told [Travis] he either gets her under control to where she minds and listens, not throw fits, and not hit me, be mean to me or she can go back home to her mother.” In response to a defense attorney request about her experience with J.K., Rhonda indicated that J.K. “lies a lot.”
It was this intermingling of the newly discovered recanted testimony and theBradyimpeachment statements in the new trial motion that proved to be a bone of contention throughout the appellate proceedings in Keeter’s case. The trial court denied the motion, resting its denial primarily on its belief that J.K.’s recantation was not credible because the visit by Travis was unexpected and the child had not seen her father in two years.
Keeter presented these issues on appeal to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting in Waco. The appeals court in April 2001found the trial evidence, as well as the evidence presented at the motion for new trial hearing, “cast substantial doubt on the child’s accusations of abuse by defendant.” Because the court found that the evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that the victim’s recantation was not credible and reversed Keeter’s conviction on this issue alone, it did not address theBradyissue that the prosecution had withheld from the defense Travis and Rhonda’s statements expressing doubts about the child’s sexual abuse allegations. The court, however, did warn that “such evidence was highly important to the defense.”
Prosecutors did not heed the warning. They knew they had deliberately withheld evidence that would have impeached the child’s testimony and almost certainly would have resulted in Keeter’s acquittal. But just as they were willing to “convict at any costs,” they were equally determined to preserve what the appeals court had strongly indicated was a wrongful conviction of an innocent man. Prosecutors sought, and secured, review of the Tenth District reversal order in a more receptive environment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”).
The CCA faced the sole issue of whether the trial court had abused its discretion by denying Keeter’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under Article 40.001 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that: “A new trial shall be granted an accused where material evidence favorable to the accused has been discovered since trial.”
In May 2002 the CCA in Keeter’s case, as it has consistently done in prior cases, held that a defendant moving for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence must satisfy a four-part test: (1) the evidence must have been unknown or unavailable to the defendant at time of the trial; (2) the failure to discover or obtain the new evidence is not due to a lack of diligence by the defendant; (3) the evidence is admissible, and is not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching; and (4) the new evidence is probably true and would probably produce a different result at a new trial. The fourth requirement, the evidence must be “probably true,” attaches the prerequisite that the evidence also be material.
The CCA reduced its review to what it perceived as the State and Court of Appeals being “at odds over the extent of a trial court’s discretion to believe or disbelieve a newly discovered recantation.” The State argued that the trial court has absolute discretion in such matters based on its “evaluation of credibility and demeanor, to disbelieve the recanted testimony.” The Court of Appeals, however, held that while the trial court enjoys broad discretion in such matters, a special rule should apply requiring the trial court to have “some basis in the record for disbelieving the recantation.”
The CCA sided with the State, even though it admitted the case law on the issue was unclear. The court offered this observation about the court of appeals’ position: “Such bases include, but are not limited to: evidence that the recanting witness was subject to pressure by family members or to threats from co-conspirators, evidence showing that part of the recantation to be false, circumstances showing that the complainant recanted after moving in with family members of the defendant, and where an accomplice recants after being convicted.”
The CCA then concluded there were a number of bases in the trial record to disbelieve J.K.’s recantation. The court reversed the court of appeals decision and remanded the case back to the appeals court for “further proceedings” consistent with its decision on theBradyissue.
In January 2003, the appeals court ruled that the statements Travis and Rhonda provided to the prosecution were “material” to the impeachment of J.K.’s credibility and critical to the defense theory that the child had fabricated the sexual abuse allegations; and that had those statements been disclosed to the defense, “the result of the proceeding would have been different.” The appeals court once again reversed Keeter’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.
This decision apparently didn’t set well with the State. Prosecutors sought, and secured, yet another discretionary review. This time prosecutors argued that Keeter had not properly preserved theBradyissue for review. This procedural maneuver is so typical of the “win at any costs” prosecutors. Here is a case here where prosecutors were more than adequately noticed that probably an innocent man had been convicted because of a lying, spiteful child and because the prosecution had withheld critical information that would have impeached the child’s false testimony. That should have been enough for an honorable, ethical prosecutor to abandon any further appellate review, re-try the case with all the evidence disclosed, or dismiss the charges against the defendant. Not in this case. The prosecution was determined to keep Keeter shackled to a wrongful conviction and a life sentence.
In response to this maneuver, the Court of Appeals withdrew its January 2003 opinion and substituted it with a forceful decision on April 3, 2003. The appeals court this time specifically informed prosecutors that they had ethical duty to disclose theBradymaterial and thatBradyviolations can never be waived for failure to preserve. The appeals court noted that while this specific issue had never been addressed by the CCA, the U.S. Supreme Court has implied thatBradyclaims are “absolute rights” that cannot be waived. The court of appeals said such a rule “follows logic and common sense” and that “it makes little sense to require the defendant to preserve by objection the non-disclosure of material to which he is entitled without making a request and which the prosecution has an affirmative duty under the Constitution to turn over.”
The court of appeals said that “disclosure by the prosecutor rises to the level of a fundamental systemic requirement of a fair trial [and] is the [reason] that disclosure is required by both statute and rules of ethics.” The court cited Article 2.01, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides: “Duties of District Attorneys … It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.”
Prosecutors in Keeter’s case violated this statutory mandate: they placed a premium on convicting, and maintaining that conviction, over seeing that “justice is done.” They suppressed facts which, according to the court of appeals, would have established Keeter’s innocence. Such conduct also violates the ethical duties spelled out in Rule 3.09(d), Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, which state that prosecutors in criminal cases shall “make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal …”
The court of appeals also quoted with approval the following observation made by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935 inBerger v. United States: “The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor–indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”
Not only was the State intent on keeping Keeter behind bars for a crime he probably did not commit, the trial court possessed that intent as well. After the appeals court reversed his conviction, Keeter filed a motion asking the trial court to set bail and later file a necessary motion for a bench warrant. The trial court refused to rule on the motion for bench warrant. Keeter was forced to apply for a writ of mandamus with the court of appeals. The appeals court on June 25, 2003 ruled that Keeter was indeed entitled to bail under Article 44.04(h), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and held that a writ of mandamus would issue against the trial court if it did not rule on Keeter’s motion for bench warrant.
Judge James E. Morgan, Judge of the 220th District Court of Hamilton County, filed a request that the appeals court “reconsider” its June 25th decision compelling a ruling on Keeter’s mandamus petition. Judge Morgan argued that for a party to obtain mandamus relief, he must establish that (1) “the act sought to be compelled in purely ‘ministerial’’; and (2) “he has no other adequate legal remedy.” An act is not “purely ministerial” if the facts which form the basis for the mandamus petition are in dispute.
The appeals court agreed with Judge Morgan, finding: “The parties dispute whether Keeter has presented in sureties to Respondent [Judge Morgan] for his approval. Because of this factual dispute, Keeter is not entitled to the relief sought.”
Nearly two years later, April 6, 2005, the CCA once again seized the opportunity to reverse the court of appeals, concluding that Keeter had not preserved theBradyviolation for appellate review. The CCA specifically held:
“The State argues that the appellant did not preserve for appellate review hisBradyclaim because the appellant did not mentionBradyin his motion for newtrial or during the hearing on the motion. Also, the State points out that the trial court did not mentionBradyin its order denying the motion.
“The appellant argues that the claim was preserved for review because theBradyallegations were apparent from the motion and from the hearing on the motion. The appellant says that theBradymaterial was intertwined with the recantation evidence and that the State never objected to the scope of the hearing.
“Because of the nature of the appellant’s complaint on appeal–that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial–he must have raised theBradycomplaint at some point during the motion for new trial proceedings to preserve the complaint for appellate review. In this case, the appellant was required to make the trial court and the State aware of his complaint before raising it on appeal: The trial court cannot be said to have erred in denying a motion for new trial on a basis that was not presented to it.”
The CCA justified this conclusion for the following reasons: “The evidence that the appellant claims preserved theBradyissue for review were relevant to the appellant’s actual innocence claim. The fact that Rhonda and Travis claimed to tell the prosecutor before trial that they thought that the complainant was lying supported the complainant’s recantation because it was some evidence, purportedly existing before the trial, that was consistent with the recantation.
The appellant did not mentionBradyin his motion or during the hearing on the motion, and did not include anyBrady-related cases in his post-hearing submission. And aBradyclaim requires that the defendant show by a preponderance of the evidence that evidence was withheld, that it was favorable to the defense, and that the evidence was material.”
Let’s put this in real time perspective. The prosecution withheld evidence, the evidence was material, yet prosecutors are absolved of their ethical and statutory duty to disclose this evidence and the result: an innocent man must remain convicted and in prison for the rest of his life because his attorney did not mention “Brady” in his motion for a new trial. Thus, a claim of “actual innocence”—a claim the courts of appeals found legitimate on two occasions—is casually disregarded because the innocent man’s attorney made a procedural error. Bottom line: the CCA said it was defense counsel’s fault that a probably innocent man must remain in prison, not the offending prosecutor who withheld the evidence.
What is tragic about the CCA’s April 2005 appeal decision is that on October 11, 2006 the court confronted a post-conviction habeas corpus application filed by Keeter. In an unpublished opinion, the CCA issued this order:
“In this writ, Applicant contends that his conviction was obtained by the failure of the prosecution to disclose favorable evidence to the defense, in violation ofBrady… The trial court has obtained affidavits from both trial counsel and the trial prosecutor responding to Applicant’s claims. However, the trial court did not make any factual findings or recommendations as to the merits of Applicant’s claims … the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. Because the issue turns on determinations of credibility and the weight of the evidence at trial, the matter will be remanded for such findings.
“The trial court may use any means set out in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection.Id.If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing…
“The trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether the prosecution was aware of evidence favorable to the defense, and if so, whether the prosecution failed to disclose such evidence prior to trial. If the trial court finds that the statements of Rhonda and Travis King constituted favorable evidence, the court shall make findings as to whether their statements were material, such that there is a reasonable probability that, had the statements been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different.The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.
“This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. If any continuances are granted, a copy of the order granting the continuance shall be sent to this Court. A supplemental transcript containing all affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall be returned to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be obtained from this Court.”
The legal trail goes cold after this habeas order. We do not know if Jackie Russell Keeter was granted a new trial and set free, or if he pled guilty to a reduced charge and received a sentence less than life, or if he is still serving the life sentence in the Texas prison system. But what we do know is that the prosecution withheld materialBradyevidence that, had it been disclosed, Keeter would not have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment—a conclusion reached by a majority of Tenth District Court of Appeals judges who heard the case.
Yet through all these convoluted legal proceedings while Keeter served a life sentence, not one word was mentioned about referring the prosecutors who withheld critical evidence supporting a claim of actual innocence to the State Bar. At the end of the day, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals chose to fault the defense attorney for sending this probably innocent man to prison for life—not the prosecutor who made the intentional decision to withhold Travis and Rhonda’s statements which went to the very credibility of his primary witness.
We have all seen children like J.K.—behavioral problems, constantly lying, being mean to other kids, disrespectful to adults, and worst of all, vindictive and spiteful. Based on this child’s testimony alone—testimony not even believed by her parents or immediate family—a man was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution not only sought the conviction but did everything within its power to maintain it.
And we call this justice? A man convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment based on the testimony of a lying child who admits under oath that she falsely accused the man of a horrific crime?
The Keeter case, in our opinion, is a travesty of justice—and some prosecutor in the Hamilton County District Attorney’s office should be held accountable for withholding evidence that would probably have established his innocence, as reported by the Tenth District Court of Appeals.
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John T. Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
John Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Keeter v. State, 97 S.W.3d 709, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 156 (Tex. App.—Waco, Jan. 8, 2003). This decision was withdrawn by the Tenth District Court of Appeals and a new decision delivered on April 3, 2003 underKeeter v. State, 105 S.W.3d 137, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 2961 (Tex. App.—Waco, April 3, 2003).
Ex parte Jackie Russell Keeter, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 273 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 11, 2006).
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
