Blog
OBSCENE EMAILS AND CARTOONS NOT PROTECTED BY FIRST AMENDMENT
Obscene Drawings, Cartoons, Sculpture, Paintings that Depict Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct Not Protected Free Speech
By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
On March 30, 2004, Dwight Whorley visited a public resource room maintained by the Virginia Employment Commission in Richmond. The room is equipped with Commission computers, printers and copiers which may be used by job seekers. A woman in the room noticed that Whorley was receiving what appeared to her as child pornography on a Commission computer. She promptly alerted Commission staff about suspicions. An officer manager and two supervisors went to the resource room where they found Whorley standing in front of a printer with some papers in his hand. One of the supervisors requested that Whorley show him the documents. Whorley complied. The documents depicted Japanese anime-style cartoons of children engaged in explicit sexual conduct with adults.
The office manager made a determination that Whorley had inappropriately used the Commission’s computer, restricted him from further use of the computer, and escorted him from the premises. The manager then returned to the computer Whorley had been using and found his Yahoo e-mail account was still open. Commission employees discovered several more copies of the sexually explicit anime-style cartoons by the computer. After printing off several of Whorley’s e-mails and removing the computer from service, the Commission office manager notified his supervisor and state police about the incident.
A subsequent law enforcement investigation determined that Whorley was already on a federal probation for a 1999 conviction for downloading child pornography on a Virginia Commonwealth University computer at the time of the Commission incident. The local U.S. Attorney’s Office presented to a grand jury the cartoons copied by Whorley at the Commission room, the data in the computer he used in the room, and information received from Yahoo about his e-mail account. Based on this evidence, the grand jury returned a 75-count indictment against Whorley alleging:
Counts 1-20 charged that on March 30, 2004 Whorley knowingly received obscene cartoons in interstate and foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462. These counts were based on 20 cartoons depicting prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit acts (including masturbation, intercourse, and oral sex) with adults, some of which were coerced.
Counts 21-40, based on the same cartoons, charged Whorley with knowingly receiving, as a person previously convicted of illegally downloading child pornography, obscene visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of § 1466A(a)(1).
Counts 41-55 charged Whorley with knowingly receiving on March 11 and 12, 2004, 15 visual depictions of minors engaged sexually explicit conduct in violation of § 2252(a)(2). These counts involved lascivious photographs of actual naked children.
Counts 56-75 charged Whorley with sending or receiving 20 obscene e-mails in interstate commerce during the period between February 5, 2004 and April 2, 2004, in violation of § 1462. These e-mails contained sexual explicit descriptions about children involved in incest and molestation by doctors.
See: United States v. Whorley, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25438, pps. 3-6 (4th Cir. Dec. 18, 2008).
At a subsequent trial, the federal district court dismissed Count 41 for lack of evidence that the photographs actually depicted a minor. The jury convicted Whorley of the remaining 74 counts. At sentencing the government moved for an upward departure in sentencing. The district court granted the motion but not to the extent requested by the government. Id., at LEXIS 6-7. The appeals court then discussed why the district court imposed the subsequent 240-month sentence:
“The departure was based on numerous factors, including Whorley’s history of downloading child pornography, which was not represented in the recommended Guidelines calculation because, except for the 1999 conviction, the prior conduct had not resulted in Whorley’s prosecution and conviction. The court also noted Whorley’s repeated failure to abide by the terms of supervised release from his prior conviction, including
continuing to access computers without the probation officer’s approval, numerous false statements concerning attempts to obtain employment, failure to obtain employment, failure to report to the Department of Rehabilitation Services, failure to report to the Offender Aid and Restoration Program, and most disturbingly, his presence at local malls and public libraries frequented by children in direct disobedience of his probation officer’s instructions.
“Also contributing to the decision to depart upward was Whorley’s failure ‘to make a good faith effort to control his sexual deviance’ and the ‘increasingly sadistic and violent’ nature of the prepubescent erotica recovered from Whorley. After increasing Whorley’s criminal history from a Category III to a Category VI, the most serious category, the district court found that the base offense level of 27 still yielded a sentencing range below the mandatory minimum statutory sentence of 180 months. The court therefore moved down the sentencing table to an offense level 32, and sentenced Whorley to 240 months’ imprisonment, which was 60 months above the recommended Guidelines sentence but which fell within the lower half of the statutory range of 180 to 480 months.” Id., at LEXIS 7-8 [Internal citation omitted].
Whorley appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit raising the following constitutional challenges:
§ 1462 is facially unconstitutional because it does not make any exception for the private receipt, possession or viewing of obscene material which, as Whorley claimed, is protected by the First Amendment.
§ 1462 is also facially unconstitutional because its use of the word “receives” with intent to prohibit receipt of obscene matter using instruments of interstate commerce is impermissibly vague in the context of receiving obscene matter from an interactive computer service.
§ 1462 is unconstitutional as applied to Counts 1-20 (receiving obscene cartoons) and Counts 56-75 (receiving obscene e-mails because Whorley did not know that cartoons and text-only e-mails lacked First Amendment protection.
§ 1466A(a)(1) is unconstitutional because the cartoons that formed the basis for Counts 21-40 did not depict actual people.
See: United States v. Whorley, supra.
OBSCENE MATERIAL
The United States Supreme Court in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) held that a Georgia statute prohibiting the possession of obscene material, particularly within one’s dwelling, violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments. Id., at 568. The Stanley court essentially found the Georgia statute too board because the “traditional notions of individual liberty” and the societal importance placed on the “privacy of a person’s own home” create a “right to be free from state inquiry into [and government regulation over] contents of [one’s home] library.” Id., at 565-68.
Stanley, however, did not create a carte blanche constitutional right to receive, transport, or distribute obscene material. The decision left intact the government’s right to regulate obscene commerce. The Supreme Court followed Stanley with four decisions that made it abundantly clear that the First Amendment prohibition against the criminalization of obscene material within the home did not create a collateral right “to receive” obscene material:
United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971) specifically rejected the notion that by creating the right to possess obscene material, Stanley somehow created a right to have it delivered through channels of commerce.
United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (1971) held that Stanley’s home right to possess obscene material did not establish right to import it from abroad.
United States v. Onto, 413 U.S. 139 (1973 held that First Amendment protection to possess obscene material in one’s own home created by Stanley did not translate into correlative right to receive, transport, and distribute it.
Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 (1977) held that Stanley did not extend any constitutional protection to receive, transport, or distribute obscene material.
The Fourth Circuit in Whorley held that § 1462 squarely fell within the line of these four cases because the statute specifically prohibits the introduction into the United States any obscene material through the knowing use of any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service. Id., at LEXIS 11.
USING INSTRUMENTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
Whorley maintained on appeal that the word “receives” as used in § 1462 is so broad that the statute can ensnare an unwitting recipient of obscenity who receives an “obscene textual message [sent] to a person’s e-mail account” from a malicious third party or as a “’pop-up ad’ or as part of a paid sponsor’s rotating advertisement.” He argued that § 1462 failed to give adequate notice as to when criminal liability attaches. The Fourth Circuit responded to this argument:
“’A statute is impermissibly vague if it either (1) ‘fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits’ or (2) ‘authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’ Stated differently, a court considering a vagueness challenge must determine if the statutory prohibitions ‘are set out in terms that the ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently understand and comply with.’
”In this case, Whorley’s argument, when analyzed more closely, in fact suggests no vagueness or misunderstanding about the scope of the word ‘receives.’ Giving that term its ordinary meaning, his argument assumes that ‘receives’ means to ‘come into possession of,’ to ‘acquire,’ or ‘to have delivered or brought to one,’ see Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 975 (10th ed. 1994); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1894 (3d ed. 1993); Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1610 (2d ed. 1987). As he articulates it, Whorley’s complaint about receiving obscene material unwittingly–i.e., without an intent to receive it–does not find confusion in the word ‘receives,’ but rather in the type of intent with which one can “receive” something. To be sure, one can ‘receive’ obscene materials intentionally and knowingly, or negligently, or by mistake or accident. Section 1462, however, does not criminalize every receipt of obscene materials, but only the ‘knowing’ receipt of them. It is thus apparent that in making his argument that ‘receives’ is too vague, Whorley actually confuses mens rea with the question of whether the word ‘receives’ itself is without sufficient meaning to be readily understood.
”Whorley is probably correct in observing that evolving computer technology will constantly change the ways in which a person’s computer may be used to ‘receive’ obscene material from an interactive computer service and that those changes might, depending on the technology, present serious questions as to whether such material can be said to have been ‘received.’ But no such question exists here where Whorley actively used a computer to solicit obscene material through numerous and repetitive searches and ultimately succeeded in obtaining the materials he sought. Moreover, while the facts of each case will require a jury to determine whether an individual has, in fact, ‘knowingly received’ obscene matter, the need for such a determination by the jury does not suggest that a statute is too vague. A statute need not spell out every possible factual scenario with ‘celestial precision’ to avoid being struck down on vagueness grounds..
”We conclude that the ordinary meaning of the term ‘receives’ is sufficiently precise in § 1462 to provide adequate notice to a person of ordinary intelligence of the conduct that Congress has prohibited.” Id., at LEXIS 12-15. [Internal citations omitted].
OBSCENE CARTOONS AND E-MAILS
Whorley suggested to the Fourth Circuit that Counts 1-20 (obscene cartoons) were unconstitutional because he had no notice that viewing cartoon images on a computer screen was unlawful. He supported this contention with the fact that one of the government’s witnesses testified that prior to March 2004, he had used the Commission resource room to access pornographic websites on several occasions without incident and while the room was monitored by Commission employees. The Fourth Circuit was not impressed:
”To the extent that this challenge parallels Whorley’s facial challenges, it fails for the same reasons they did. Thus, whatever protection Stanley may have afforded to the possession of obscene matter in the privacy of the home, it cannot be said to have created a right to ‘receive’ obscene materials using instruments of commerce. And to the extent that this challenge is based on Whorley’s ignorance of the law or his belief that his similar conduct in the past should somehow provide him a defense, the claim is frivolous. ‘The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system’.” Id., at LEXIS 15-16.
The Fourth Circuit was equally unimpressed by Whorley’s contention that the obscene e-mails in Counts 56-75 were only textual and therefore could not be obscene, even though the district court had considered this issue “troubling.” Whorley tried to convince the court that e-mails were “pure speech” that did not include any real visual depictions, nor were they accompanied by attachments that contained obscene material. He reasoned that text, standing alone, could not be constitutionally prohibited as obscene. Id., at LEXIS 17.
The Fourth Circuit pointed out that traditional formulations of obscenity have never depended on the form or medium of expression. Id.
The Fourth Circuit followed the lead of the Supreme Court who, thirty-five years ago, defined obscenity in the context of “works” when “taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” See: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973).
The same day the Supreme Court handed down Miller it also decided Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973) which held that “works” includes words and pictorial representations. Id., at 119. Kaplan held:
“Obscenity can, of course, manifest itself in conduct, in the pictorial representation of conduct, or in the written and oral description of conduct. The Court has applied similarly conceived First Amendment standards to moving pictures, to photographs, and to words in books.” Id.
The Court in Kaplan affirmed the conviction of a book store proprietor who sold a book made up ‘entirely of repetitive descriptions of physical, sexual conduct, ‘clinically’ explicit and offensive to the point of being nauseous[, with] only the most tenuous ‘plot.’ Almost every conceivable variety of sexual contact, homosexual and heterosexual, [was] described.” Id., at 116-17.
Guided by Miller and Kaplan, the Fourth Circuit concluded that both the cartoons and textual e-mails in the Whorley case were obscene within the meaning of § 1452.
ACTUAL PEOPLE
Finally, Whorley tried to convince that Fourth Circuit that because the cartoon figures in Counts 21-40 were not depictions of actual people, § 1466A(a)(1) was unconstitutional under two existing Supreme Court precedents.
The Court in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) upheld a New York statute that prohibited depictions of actual children engaged in sexual conduct, regardless of whether the depictions were obscene. Id., at 773-74. Whorley construed Ferber to require use of “actual children” before there could be criminal wrongdoing. He also cited Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) which held that any visual depiction that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct” violates the First Amendment insofar as the statute prohibited virtual imagery of minors that was neither obscene nor involved actual children. Id., at 246-47.
The Fourth Circuit pointed out that Whorley, to make his argument, stressed that “subsection (a)(1) prohibiting depictions of ‘a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct’) is mirrored in subsection (a)(2) (prohibiting ‘an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor’). He argues that the ‘appears to be’ language in subsection (a)92) indicates reference to a real minor in subsection (a)(1). In addition, he contends that subsection (a)(1) prohibits material depicting ‘sexually explicit conduct,’ which is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256 as referring to real people. Section 2256 defines ‘sexually explicit conduct’ in part as actual or simulated sexual intercourse, ‘whether between persons of the same or opposite sex.’
”In making his argument, however, Whorley focuses too narrowly on isolated portions of § 1466a(a)(1). While § 1466A(a)(1) would clearly prohibit an obscene photographic depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, it also criminalizes receipt of ‘a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting,’ that ‘depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct’ and is obscene. § 1466A(a)(1). In addition, Whorley overlooks § 1466A(c), which unambiguously states that ‘[i]t is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.’ The clear language of § 1466A(a)(1) and § 1466A(c) is sufficiently broad to prohibit receipt of obscene cartoons, as charged in Counts 21-40.
“This leaves Whorley with the argument that if an actual minor is not required to be depicted in § 1466A(a)(1), then the statute is unconstitutional under New York v. Ferber and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. There is, of course, no suggestion that the cartoons in this case depict actual children; they were cartoons. Relying specifically on Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Whorley points to the observation made in that opinion that the First Amendment does not protect ‘defamation, incitement, obscenity, and pornography produced with real children,’ but that a ban on non-obscene material that did not use real children was impermissibly overbroad. The Court in Ashcroft noted further that New York v. Ferber ‘provide[d] no support for a statute that eliminates the distinction [between actual and virtual child pornography].’ Thus, he asserts that the First Amendment protects non-obscene pornography that does not depict real children.
“But in making his argument, Whorley ignores the language of § 1466A(a)(1), which prohibits visual depictions of minors only when they are obscene. Ashcroft itself noted that obscenity in any form is not protected by the First Amendment. Thus, regardless of whether § 1466A(a)(1) requires an actual minor, it is nonetheless a valid restriction on obscene speech under Miller, not a restriction on non-obscene pornography of the type permitted by Ferber. We thus find Whorley’s as-applied constitutional challenge to § 1466A(a)(1) to be without merit.” Id., at LEXIS 19-21 (emphasis original) [Internal citations omitted].
This article about the Whorley case is consistent with other recent pieces we’ve posted about the First Amendment, the Internet, and prohibited sexual conduct involving children. Whorley re-emphasized the point we made in those articles: the First Amendment does not protect any sexual activity – speech, cartoons, pornography, solicitation, and e-mails – involving minors, real or not.
BY: HOUSTON CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER JOHN FLOYD AND PARALEGAL BILLY SINCLAIR
Take the first step toward protecting your freedom by contacting us now
Testimonials
John T. Floyd Law Firm
3730 Kirby Drive # 750, Houston
-
If you have hired attorneys that meet the Webster dictionary definition, ie: "Attorney " is a person that has a law degree, will not be totally honest, can take your money … More and not earn it, will put you off until he is ready to talk to you, and/or never study your case to be able to defend you. Mr. Floyd is the only attorney that doesn't fit that definition!! You will be delighted to have Mr. John Floyd in your corner! Not one attorney that I have ever met that would ever return a check that I sent to him, because he said I paid him too much! Wow! That right there should tell you something about his integrity!!!!! He has a very calm demeanor and doesn't stretch the truth even if you don't want to hear it, he will tell you the truth. Call and set up an appointment with him and judge for yourself. You are wasting time and money on any other attorney, just hire the best, Mr. Floyd.
-
John T. Floyd and his team are some of the best people! I was able to get a second opinion from them on legal advice. His team has been honest, kind, and very informative which has … More been a huge blesssing.
-
I highly recommend John T. Floyd Lawfirm. They are truly knowledgeable and willing to go the extra mile to defend your innocence. Psalms 35
-
Outstanding!Professional knowledge. Rich experiences. Good outcome.
-
-
The best lawyer I ever encounter with a very good personality. He’s very professional and he will go far and beyond for his clients best interest. He’s definitely a 5 star attorney … More when it comes to delivering. I couldn’t be more happier that I hired him !! 👏👏👏👏
-
-
I can honestly say from what I have seen so far, Floyd is a compassionate soul who cares for his client's. Floyd is by far very knowledgeable in this area. He's currently … More assisting my [Father] on a sex assault. We are all suffering so much as my father is an elder man, but we have faith in God, and Mr. Floyd he can dismissed this outrageous allegation soon. Thank you, yoli
-
I had wonderful experience with this law firm. They were so helpful and knowledgeable of the process.my case was dismissed because of Mr John T Floyd,thank you for everything .
-
I am very happy today my case dismissed God bless Mr John T Floyd very good lawyer thanks you so mush sir
-
I had a great experience with this Law Firm, the kind staff helped me locate a Lawyer even though they were unable to take my case.
They were very helpful, kind and returned my call … More in a timely manner. I would definitely recommend them and use them in the future. -
I can tell that Jone is an excellent attorney in Houston. Personally, he is a great man. In addition to great service and amazing results. Recommended
-
Mr. Floyd is an incredible attorney and human being. He cares about your case, the facts, the law, and your life! I am sorry for whatever situation you are going through, but choosing … More Mr. Floyd, his firm, and their professional experience to help you, will be the best decision you ever make!
-
John T Floyd is a straight shooter! He was very direct and responsive to my phone calls and questions. I was in awe of his knowledge, and professional decorum! The best decision that … More you could make is to schedule a consultation with him before considering anyone else!
-
I asked the Law Office of John T. Floyd a very important question regarding the legal aspects of purchasing a firearm with a deferred adjudication charge. They answered the question … More very professionally and accurately and I was quite pleased with the information that was shared. I recommend this law firm because they are very honest and will work for you and with you.
-
I’ve never been one to write reviews but this time I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to say something. I had some serious legal questions I needed answers to concerning Texas laws. … More Being I’m from another state, I found and reached out to Attorney John Floyd for the answers. Mr Floyd listened to to my requests and told me what he need from me and went out of his way to get me the answers. Very polite, straightforward and professional, I can’t thank him enough for all he’s done. Whatever your legal case may be, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Mr Floyd.
-
John & Chris helped my family member get a reduced charge and acceptable plea agreement in place. Their compassion, attention to every detail was what helped carry the day.Truly … More the best of the best.P
-
Mr. Floyd is both ethical and loyal to his clients; two qualities that are hard to find specially in lawyers. I'd definitely recommend him to anyone.Positive
Professionalism …More … More -
Mr. John was very helpful and truly was the reason why my case was dismissed. Thank you so much Mr. John I truly recommend everyone in need to work with him.
-
His service to the community and diligence to helping his clients speaks for its self! Not to mention the many articles, papers and TV appearances that speak to his intellect
-
John has given Excellent service and have been very friendly and extremely helpful to us. I highly recommend this law firm
-
This law firm is diligent, responsive and succeeded in getting my case dismissed. 10/10 would recommend.
-
super knowledgeable, good attitude, would definitely recommend him
-
Very helpful, knowledgeable and honest.
-
John is an amazing person and lawyer who is actually very understanding of how anxious I got and although it was hard to reach him sometimes because of his schedule, but never worry … More he is on top of things. He is very organized, very smart. I had the experience to go through a trial with him, and he always plans ahead well and is actually open and receptive to any ideas and comments I had and he was quick to decide which is right to use at the moment. I really appreciated working with him and Chris. Great lawyers and great people. As I was reminded by John, I am adding that the Jury reached a not guilty decision on the original charge and on a lesser charge in just 25 minutes. It took more time to write the charge and instructions for the jury than it took them to reach a decision.
-
Highly recommend John T Floyd law firm, great response time and demeanor.I was researching an on-going criminal case, when I found an informative article written by John Floyd (about … More the perils of expert testimony). I called his office, and was very pleased to receive a timely call back. Not only was Mr. Floyd candid and helpful, but he had the kindest demeanor of any attorney that I've dealt with. I am so glad to have found this firm.
-
Although I am not a client, John Floyd contacted me the same day I sent an email requesting advice, answered my questions and even when further to assist with my issue and communicated … More with me the next day. A true credit to his profession and I can only imagine how well he provides services to his actual clients!
-
I give Mr. Floyd 10 Stars if they were available so I'm giving him five that's all that's available. The first time I left a message for him it was on a Friday after … More 5 p.m. and within 15 minutes he called me back I told him I needed to buy a lotto ticket because that has never happened. I knew from our chat and him calling me back that he was different from any attorney I've tried to talk to left messages never got called back they didn't even know what I needed and neither did Mr. Floyd but he did call me back. I was very interested in meeting with mr. Floyd about my case because I felt he was very transparent honest and genuine. If you've ever dealt with attorneys they don't have those traits but Mr. Floyd does. He was very honest with me told me what I could and could not do with my case. He is not egotistical he's very compassionate and he actually reads the documents you sent him unbelievable that's never happened. He will be the only lawyer I refer to anyone that needs his expertise. If you're in need of a criminal defense attorney please give John T Floyd a call you will not be disappointed.
-
Mr John is a great human being and a very knowledgeable attorney. He has always called me back promptly,advised me very clearly and never rushed our conversation. i was wrongfully accused … More and Mr John had my case DISMISSED!! on the day of trial after fighting for me for two years. I am very thankful to the John T. Floyd Law Firm. You will not go wrong with John. Mr John you deserve way more then 5 stars.Thank youShaikh.
-
John Floyd Law Firm is highly recommended for your legal needs. He and his staff are highly professional in every aspect. Easy and comfortable feeling talking with him, and he understands … More your needs and explains your legal advice in a way you can understand. Enough just cant be said. Thank You Sir.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John was kind enough to assist me with legal advise on my firearm gun rights restoration. I highly recommend him and his firm. Very professional and knowledgeable. If I need assistance … More in the future I will definitely go back to him.
-
What I liked the most was that he actually returned my phone after leaving a message unlike pretty much everyone else I called prior. He listened and answered my question with the best … More advice that would benefit me the most. I was actually lost from moving to Texas from a different state we’re laws vary and he pointed me toward the right direction to get a understanding of if I need to do business with him now or after I contact a lawyer in my home state.
-
John T Floyd handled my sons case & got a dismissal for us! He is great to work with, gets back to you promptly & knows what he’s doing. Definitely one of the best we have had … More to deal with!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John is honestly the best! The whole team is. He answered me in a timely manner and helped me when my friend was going through a situation in Houston, Texas as an inmate. He was so … More thorough, honest, and without charging me sent me so much information because I was out of the loop. He never once tried to take you for your money, he did all that he could to. help me and I can't thank him enough.
-
I have used John on two occasions and found him to have full knowledge of Texas law, diligent, creative in plan, and aggressive in defense. He is the best criminal defense attorney … More in the State of Texas. No reason to look elsewhere.
-
I have been calling to get some legal advice pertaining to gun rights. A few legal offices would not even take my call because quote " your not a client and Im losing money. … More I I called John T. Floyd Law Firm and they were not only able to answer my question, but gave great detail information, and further elaborated on their answer. I hope I do not have to use them in the future, but if I do need to, they will be my first call.
-
Great lawyer! Needed some advice and gave me a Consultation, and advice for steps to take, without any hassle l, Was a honest guy and actually wanted to help me and not just take my … More money! Highly recommend!!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Attorney Floyd replied very timely to my inquiry and he provided practical advice. I will not hesitate to contact him in the future if I need additional legal counsel.
-
Highly recommend, down to earth lawyer. Talked to me about my legal issues without being super money hungry and genuinely wanted to help me with my legal problems. 5 stars ⭐️.
-
Very knowledgeable and professional. I called and left a message Friday morning and before end of business that day I received a call back.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism … More …More -
Very helpful highly recommended for any Question / case will definitely keep he's name and number for any other legal advice
-
Excellent service and a lawyer that doesn't lie. He does what he says. JW recommends him.
-
One of the best services Ive used in awhile. Thank you for all the help and answers. You got my life back. Thank youPositive
Quality …More -
Im impressed. This guy was polite and professional and most important...he listened.
-
Good experience and very good lawyer
-
-
-
Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, ValueMore -
It was a pleasure speaking with John. He is knowledgeable and has a true desire to help the people of society. I turned to him for some guidance of a long-standing issue. He never … More rushed our conversation and went out of his way to look into the details to provide the right answer as well as assist me anyway he could. Thank you for our conversations and I wish your and your firm the best. If you need a lawyer, John Floyd is your guy!
-
John represented me in court for roughly 2 years. I won't (and shouldn't) get into any serious details, but let me tell you that I couldn't have chosen anyone better. … More Seriously.Every appearance in court I felt very comfortable. The judge and DA's had a high regard for his reputation. There is a time I recall where simply his presence greatly impacted the court's interpretation of my case and persons. We were in front of the stand and the judge could not stop talking about John's prestige and past accomplishments and how that took in relation to my case. I kept silent in front of the judge, but I observed then that John's popularity and reputation within the court had already given me a better looking rapport with the judge. Let me tell you, I never had more confidence then, knowing that the judge held him in such high regard.This is not to mention how personable John is. I'll be honest that during the stress of court, sharing a laugh with your lawyer helps a lot. This may sound a lot, but I really appreciated the relationship we had then. This is also not to mention that he was able to deal very well with any DA that rotated over the years. Seriously, John was great, prompt with information and very hands on with my case. I had great peace those 2 years until everything wrapped up.If you're looking for a lawyer, I highly, HIGHLY recommend the John T. Floyd Law Firm. He IS nationally renowned, you know. He'll get the job done to the utmost confidence. He's very experienced and has a great record to boot. I am glad to have had him represent me in court and trust me that I never thought I'd ever say that (and whoever does?). We explored every avenue of victory together and I personally enjoyed the experience, despite the seriousness of the accusation.If you have a case that needs to be represented at the highest levels, choose John T. Floyd. He's a good man and very good at what he does. Him and his team has the experience you need to make the best decisions and options to get the best outcome for your case. We got the best result I could possibly ask for, thank God.Seriously. Hire John. He knows what he's doing.Seriously.
-
One of the few honest lawyers I have ever talked to. His complimentary consultation was knowledgeable and thorough. He knew exactly what the issue was and how to handle it. His candid … More appraisal of the situation and how to proceed saved me thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you have a case requiring expertise in John's area of practice, look no further. Hire this man!
-
I had the opportunity to read an article that Mr. Floyd wrote and it was very interesting. I called him about the article and advice concerning a similar situation. He not only gave … More me excellent advice, he pointed out not just what I wanted to hear but what I needed to hear concerning my situation. The Good, The Bad and The ugly in a manner or speaking. He spoke with an open and honest heart with information to help me and not just to get a client.
-
If you are in trouble and need a lawyer, contact the John T. Floyd law firm. Some of the best lawyers in Texas work there! Understanding and helpful lawyers and staff that will do all … More they can to help you 😊
-
He gave me one of the most honest answers I have received in a very long time about any issue I was having with anything. Legal or not legal. I highly recommend giving him a call and … More will be referring him to friends and family if they have any issues in the future.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He took time out of his day to answer my legal questions and didn’t even charge me. I would definitely recommend him to you.
-
Gave free consultation on getting gun rights back. He truly cares about gun rights and getting you the help you deserve. 100% worth a callPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, … More Value …More -
Very professional, great quality work, and very friendly and helpful. Overall, their service is phenomenal. I recommend Mr. Floyd to anyone.
-
Mr. Floyd took the time to explain his experience with the law to me in layman's terms. Definitely give him a call.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He was honest , knowledgeable , and professional about what we talked about. Most lawyers are just about the money , but not john.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He was very truthful and honest with us very great man I would recommend him and we would use him again
-
Very professional honest and works hard currently working my husband’s appeal I pray he does his best workPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I contacted John T. Floyd Law firm and I was very satisfied with service extremely helpful and friendly thank you Mr. FloydPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More … More -
This law frim was informative,great response time ,and the attorney called back not some secretary or legal assistant thank u guys for all your help wish it was more like youPositive … More
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I would highly recommend Mr Floyd. He was very helpful and knowledge with a legal question I had.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He explained my case better then any other lawyerPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Very informative
-
-
-
-
Had the pleasure speaking with John Floyd on a personal matter, he was very responsive, nothing but exceptional, and he really cares about you with sincerity and most importantly knows … More what is he talking about! No games or bs, his approach to my situation even though I knew it was probably way smaller then what he normally takes on, he was extremely helpful and didn't care about the size of the matter like other attorneys do. He really looked out for my best interests. You can tell he has decades of experience doing what he does just by chatting with him. I would highly recommend him.
-
Words can’t describe how grateful I am for working with John, he went above and beyond my expectation. I was wrongly accused and hired many lawyers before hiring John Floyd but they … More all disappointed me, I had lost hope until a friend of mine referred me to John. From the start he had my best interest in mind and gave helpful advice, he explained the process and guided me. He put more work and time than all my previous lawyers that cost me thousands of dollars. He was constantly communicating with court and defended me more than all lawyer i had hired before him. Don’t waste your time and money like I did, believe me when I say I hired countless lawyers before him and no one came close to John. I’m forever thankful for him for fighting for my innocence and getting my case dismissed. Thank you so much🙏🏼🙏🏼
-
I called Mr Floyd and left a message, with in the hour I received a call back with much more information then I could have ever expected. Mr Floyd was very informative on every question … More I had for him. He seemed like he cared, instead of like most attorneys that you talk to that are just out for a quick buck. If you want someone that is going to shoot strait with you, and has your best interest in hand, this is you guy. This was the best experience that I have ever had with an lawyer.
-
I can state with confidence that Mr. Floyd and his team are the most competent and professional lawyers one can hope for. My case was quite complex and I admit that as a law student … More I was not the most patient client. Mr. Floyd did a phenomenal job of managing the bench, prosecution and myself! The result was above expectation, and I will never hesitate to recommend this firm regardless of the caliber of the case at issue.
-
It was a pleasure working with Mr. Floyd. I contacted him regarding a legal matter and he was extremely knowledgeable about the law, and responded in a timely manner. I appreciated … More the fact I did not feel rushed, and he made sure he thoroughly answered all questions I had. I would highly recommend him!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
Spoke with John Floyd about a 45 year old criminal case I was involved in. I had very little information about the case and John helped me search what records were available and gave … More me guidance to find more information. He was very professional and took his time helping me. I may need to hire a lawyer on this case and Mr. Floyd will be the man.Thanks John.
-
Very professional and straight forward. He's not going to waste your time or money. Very knowledgeable in a large range of possible matters one could face living in these days … More and times. If ever you need legal assistance, this is who I would suggest. Awesome!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I called about some legal questions I needed to get clarified and John was able to give me clarification and sound advice. I will definitely contact John for all future legal questions … More and issues.Thank you John!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism, Value …More -
Knows his stuff and well respected with DA and judges. I have referred him a couple times and every client has been satisfied
-
John is beyond knowledgeable! If I decide to pursue my case any further I would only have him represent me.
-
What a great attorney, this guy really took time out of his day to answer my questions and explain my case to me. Very grateful, thank you so muchPositive
Professionalism …More -
Absolutely a very professional lawyer. Very well read in the current law and more than willing to help if needed.
-
Mr. John he’s a professional he knows what he’s doing and he’s patient they recommend Him stronglyPositive
Professionalism …More -
Great service, very knowledgable and happy to help with any questions I had
-
Quick to action and helpful and knowledgeable with entertainment industry based issues!
-
Responded on a holiday week. Very knowledgeable and reassuring.
-
Very professional
-
-
-
-
I want to thank John T. Floyd and all of his team. He is the best lawyer who cares aboutHis clients and fights really hard to get the best outcome. He is a fighter and he is awesome!!!I … More recommend if any one needs criminal defense , he is the BEST. We had a really serious caseAnd we are very thankful for the outcome. Thank you John!!!!! God bless you!!!!!!
-
The attorneys at John T. Floyd Law Firm work diligently to achieve the best possible results for their clients. They are caring and knowledgeable professionals. Their expertise in the … More law and their experience as trial attorneys makes them the right choice as a defense attorney. I recommend this law firm highly.
-
From beginning to end this firm handled my case like the top tier professionals they are. I would not trust ANYONE else with my legal needs after having less than stellar experiences … More with other teams. Thank you Floyd!!!
-
I really felt like the team cared about my case and am super satisfied with the outcome. Would not recommend anyone else!
-
These guys do amazing work and have phenomenal service! Hands down best in the Houston area!!
-
John and Chris are true professionals! Love those guys like family!
-
Mr. Floyd and his team are very knowledgeable, informative, and helpful.
-
A team you can depend on to stand up and fight for you to prove the truth the whole truth!
-
-
Mr. John T. Floyd represented me.I couldn't be happier with the outcome he managed to achieve on an VERY Important case that was dismissed the day of Trial. He is patient & … More very knowledgeable of the legal system. I HIGHLY recommend him to anyone in need of a lawyer!John, I am forever grateful & satisfied with the effort you put forth & all you did for me. Thank you isn't enough!God bless you & your family!
-
The John T. Floyd Law Firm assisted me, and I can tell you that the attorney took the time to answer my questions, and I didn't feel rushed or dismissed as I have experienced in … More the past with attorneys. The attorney was very nice and extremely knowledgeable. Initial impressions and continued excellent customer service are big factors for me and as such I would highly recommend this firm.
-
I thank you for your efforts to help Felons regain their Civil rights, and for the information on possession , I am A convicted Felon, no violent history. I am an expert shot, I am … More 76 yoa, and very concerned about the present lake of Security in our State and Country. God Bless and Prosper you in your efforts, Your friend, Sonny Bivens
-
I really appreciated both Chris and John helping with my legal questions and concerns. Both are good guys and I would not hesitate to recommend them.
-
Extremely helpful!!! Helping me understand the law.
John T. Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Request A Confidential Consultation
Fields marked with an * are required
"*" indicates required fields
Copyright © 2024 John T. Floyd Law Firm • All rights reserved.
Designed & Developed by
