Blog
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT OFTEN LOST IN JUDICIAL SHUFFLE
Defense Must Make Batson Objections: Court Not Required to Sua Sponte Control Misconduct
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Many people in the general public, especially those among the more politically conservative persuasion, have the misconception that lawyers and some judges look for ways to free criminals “on technicalities.” Nothing could be further from the truth. To the contrary, many courts are diligent, almost to the point of being dangerous to constitutional liberties, in reducing the ability of offenders to have fair, open, and unfettered access to the courts.
It is difficult to trace who first uttered the phrase “every man should have his day in court” but it has become an almost obsolete concept to virtually every convicted inmate (almost all of whom are indigent) housed in the nation’s prison systems. It seems today that the only people who truly enjoy unfettered access to the courts are those with the attorneys, money, and resources necessary to open the doors to the hallways of justice. The remaining lost souls face big-brother legalese, procedural obstacles, time bars, filing limitations, harmless errors, and a host of other post-conviction devices designed to make their convictions final and to close off any efforts to prove actual innocence or the claims of unfair trial.That’s what happened to Constantino Carrera.
A November 6, 2012 decision by anen bancNinth Circuit Court of Appeals denying Carrera federal habeas corpus relief underscores this point. The saga of Carrera’s struggle to gain access to the courts is both tortuous and illustrative—not just because access was virtually shut off to him at every turn, but because the serious issue of prosecutorial misconduct got swept under the rug in a seemingly never-ending judicial shuffle he encountered. We will attempt to explain this journey with decisions by the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court.
THE CRIME
What happened in the Imperial 400 Motel in Mojave, California during the night of April 7, 1982 was horrific. The bodies of Jack and Carol Hayes, discovered on the morning of April 8, spoke to that horror. In living quarters adjacent to the motel’s office, Carol Hayes’s fully dressed body revealed she had been stabbed to death with between 20 to 30 penetrating blows while Jack Hayes partially clad body (t-shirt and undershorts) revealed he had been stabbed to death with 14 or 15 wounds. The stab wounds were large, including one in the head of Jack which was inflicted with such force that the knife blade broke leaving three inches of blade embedded in his skull. Approximately $238 was stolen from the couple during the robbery.
THE INVESTIGATION
Carrera and an associate, Ramiro Ruiz, were arrested without a warrant on April 12. Carrera was 20 years old at the time; Ruiz, 17 years of age. Both men were charged with the murder/robbery of the Hayes’s. They were also charged with felony murder-robbery and “multiple-murder special circumstances.” The charges made Carrera death penalty eligible but not Ruiz because of his juvenile age.
A number of friends and associates figured prominently in the investigation. There was some sort of gathering of these individuals, including Mike Santana (age 19) and Teresa F. (age 14) who were later charged “accessories” in the murder of the Hayes’s. This “get together” occurred during the afternoon of April 7. Also present at this social gathering was Efrain Carrera, Constantino’s younger brother. The group of friends drank beer and smoked marijuana. Apparently Constantino, Ruiz and Santana ingested a small amount of LSD to top off the booze and weed. Some of the group parted ways. Carrera, Ruiz and Santana later joined another group of friends at Santana’s sister house (Carmen Valadez). Present at this gathering were Teresa, Tina and Sherry H. (both 12 years of age), Carrera’s older sister, Maria Nunez, and Patience S. (age 15).
All these individuals, except Ruiz, provided law enforcement and prosecution officials with conflicting information and testimony about Carrera’s and Ruiz’s movements that night. Some said the two men left the party together sometime between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. and returned around 10:00 p.m. while others said the duo did not leave until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. Efrain said Ruiz left the party alone at 8:30 p.m., and his brother and Tina left about 15 minutes later. Efrain added that Carrera and Tina returned together “later that evening” while Ruiz returned alone about 10:30 or 11:00 p.m.
Carrera’s version of the events was similar, although it varied in time as to when the events occurred. Law enforcement and prosecution officials, however, determined they had compiled enough information to place Carrera and Ruiz away from the party during the time the Hayes’s were murdered.
THE TRIAL
The California Supreme Court describes the thrust of the State’s case as follows:
“Teresa and Santana testified, as did defendant (Carrera), and Tina and Sherry H., that the six of them left Carmen’s house in Ruiz’s car after getting a jump start from Patience S.’s boyfriend. Teresa and Santana both also testified that Ruiz stopped the car in a deserted area a little while later, that defendant, Ruiz and Santana got out, and that defendant and Ruiz changed their clothes. The two also said that, after dropping off Tina and Sherry H. at their home, Ruiz stopped the car at a liquor store.
“Teresa testified that Santana and Ruiz went into the store, while she and defendant remained outside in the car. At this time, defendant told her what had happened that evening. Defendant told her that he had ‘messed up his whole life’ and that he ‘had stabbed someone.’ Defendant said he and Ruiz had gone to the Imperial 400 Motel to get some money that was owed Ruiz, who had formerly worked there. Ruiz stabbed the woman at the motel many times; defendant said that he cut her on the arm when he saw her reaching for something. Defendant also told her that the man came out ‘and they hit him with scissors in the head.’ Santana and Ruiz then came back to the car from the store, and the four drove to a motel. When Santana and Ruiz again left the car to rent rooms, defendant told Teresa that ‘a knife broke off in the lady’s neck, in the throat.’ Two rooms were rented at this motel. Defendant and Santana spent the night in one of the rooms; Ruiz and Teresa shared the other.
“Santana’s testimony differed somewhat from Teresa’s. According to Santana, defendant and Ruiz went into the liquor store while he remained in the car with Teresa. He agreed, however, that he and Ruiz rented the motel rooms while defendant and Teresa remained in the car. Santana testified that defendant told him about the events at the Imperial 400 Motel while they were in the room they shared. Defendant told Santana that he and Ruiz went to the motel to rob it and that Ruiz stabbed the lady a couple of times. Defendant said he cut her once on the wrist when she reached for a telephone and then froze while Ruiz continued to stab her. Ruiz then walked into a room where the man was sleeping and stabbed him. The man got up and hit Ruiz, but Ruiz continued to stab him until he fell down. Defendant also told Santana that while Ruiz was stabbing the people, ‘the knife broke and he went inside the kitchen and got another knife.’ Santana further testified that he saw defendant and Ruiz divide more than $100 and that some of the money had specks of blood on it.
“Despite the conflict over who went into the liquor store with Ruiz, the testimony of Teresa and Santana coincided on three main points. Defendant and Ruiz planned to rob the Imperial 400 Motel, defendant cut Carol Hayes on the arm when she reached for something, and both victims were stabbed many times. Defendant’s account of the events placed the greater portion of responsibility for the murders on Ruiz.”
No one will probably ever know precisely what happened before, during, and after the Hayes’s were killed, or what role Carrera and Ruiz played in those events. For example, there was significant conflict as to what clothing and shoes the two men wore; where it was disposed of; and in what manner. What is clear is that Carrera and Ruiz were responsible for the murder of the Hayes’s.
THE PROSECUTION
State prosecutors had a lot of information, although some of it questionable and conflicting, about the brutal murders of the Hayes’s. They had two primary principals who actually planned the robbery of the couple and one seemed more responsible than the other in carrying out the murders. The first problem prosecutors faced was that the more culpable offender—17-year-old Ruiz—was not eligible for the death penalty. So prosecutors directed their attention and resources to securing a death penalty against Carrera. It really did not matter as to what extent he may have participated the killing of the couple. He was there at the motel when the killings took place; he took part in the robbery by accepting some of the money taken from the couple. Under the felony-murder doctrine, that made him as guilty as though he had personally stabbed the couple to death.
The second problem the prosecution faced was the fact that crime was Hispanic-on-white. The jury would hear conflicting testimony from mostly Hispanic witnesses. The prosecutors likely feared Hispanic jurors might not be as inclined to send a Hispanic defendant to his death based on such testimony. To get around this problem, prosecutors elected to pursue a strategy to keep all, or certainly most, potential Hispanic jurors off the jury that would ultimately decide the case.
This shameful prosecutorial strategy evolves from our nation’s sordid history of slavery, emancipation, and post-civil war racial segregation. By law or custom, blacks, or any other minority class, before the 1970s were excluded from grand and petit jury duty. In fact, women did not gain the right to serve on juries in death penalty cases until the 1970s—e.g., Louisiana in 1973. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court would hand down a host of cases, beginning in the 1960s, which essentially held that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be indicted and tried by jurors representing a fair cross section of the community. Put simply, an individual could not be systematically excluded from jury service based solely on race or gender.
These Supreme Court decisions had an immediate impact on the death penalty. Minorities and women were not as inclined to impose the death penalty, unless it involved serious aggravating circumstances, while white males would more likely vote for the death penalty, especially for minority defendants. The death penalty, they believed (and many still do), was not only a legitimate but a necessary social response to any minority offender who killed, or even attacked, a white person. For example, between 1930 and 1967, 455 men were executed in this country for rape—402 of them were black, almost all of whom had raped white women. In fact, some states, like Virginia, never executed a white man for rape.
To resolve the social and political tension created by the Supreme Court’s dictate that a criminal jury represent a fair cross section of the community, state legislatures passed laws that gave prosecutors unlimited challenges for cause for jurors who indicated they could not return a vote for the death penalty. While the Supreme Court ruled that the unfettered challenges for cause in capital cases went too far, the court nonetheless upheld the right of prosecutors to exclude potential jurors who stated they could not under any circumstances return a death penalty verdict.
The social and political tension continued when prosecutors confirmed their fears that potential minority jurors would not automatically return a death penalty verdict in minority-on-white murder cases. While most of these minority jurors believed in the death penalty, they found it “unfair” in cases where they perceived the decision to go after the death penalty was based solely on the general practice of a District Attorney’s office to secure this penalty in minority-on-white crimes.
To circumvent this problem and continue the practice of having primarily white, pro-death penalty juries decide minority-on-white murder cases, prosecutors began using their 12 statutory peremptory challenges, which could be used for any reason without cause, in conjunction racially motivated but legally arguable challenges for cause, during voir dire to keep minorities off juries in minority-on-white crimes. That’s what the prosecution did in Carrera’s case. The prosecutor “peremptorily challenged 75 percent of the Hispanic surname venirepersons” while, by contrast, he peremptorily challenged just “26 percent of the white, non-Hispanic surnamed venirepersons.”
The prosecution pursued this racially-motivated strategy despite the fact that the California Supreme Court had five years earlier, in People v. Wheeler, declared this practice unconstitutional under that state’s constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court joined the California Supreme Court with its own decision, Batson v. Kentucky, that held the practice of using peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors based solely on race also violated the Federal constitution.
Wheeler, likeBatson, requires a timely objection by defense counsel and aprima facieshowing of “group bias.” Prior to voir dire, Carrera’s defense attorney filed a motion to quash the venire because there were “insufficient procedures” in place to “ensure a panel that reflected the ethnic and racial diversity of Kern County.” The defense motion was made before the racial makeup of the venire panel was even known. When the panel was in fact chosen, it showed that between 11 and 14 members of the panel “had Hispanic surnames” and at least four members were black. Based on this information, defense counsel withdrew her motion to quash. And while the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude six of 8 Hispanic venirepersons, the remaining two did serve on the jury.
Aprima facieshowing of group bias underWheelerhas three elements:
- The defense should make as complete of record of the circumstances as it feasible;
- The defense must establish that the persons excluded are members of a cognizable group within the meaning of the representative cross-section rule; and
- From all the circumstances of the case the defense must show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than of any specific bias.
Carrera’s defense counsel abandoned any effort to establish any of these three elements—a signal to the prosecution that perhaps it could get away with any strategy necessary to secure a death penalty verdict. This included the use of three jailhouse informants who gave conflicting testimony about what Carrera told them concerning his participation in the robbery/murder of the Hayes’s. In fact, the prosecution elected to use one of the informants even though the informant had access to Carrera’s legal papers when Carrera left his cell to go out on the prison yard. The California Supreme Court in fact called this informant’s testimony “questionable.”
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Following his conviction and after being sentenced to death, Carrera raised the issue of the prosecutor’s conduct as well as the trial court’s handling of the trial. The California Supreme Court took note of each of these issues set forth below:
- Use of Tainted Testimony. Carrera’s “first objection is that the prosecutor presented testimony from Santana that contradicted testimony the same prosecutor had elicited from Santana at the separate trial of Ruiz a few weeks before. Defendant asserts that Santana’s testimony was false on at least one of the occasions and that his conviction cannot stand due to the attendant corruption of the fact-finding process.”
- Improper Direct Examination. Carrera objected that “the prosecutor asked questions of two witnesses that assumed the existence of prejudicial facts not then or later placed in evidence.”
- Abusive Cross-examination. “The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant was marked by multiple objections from defense counsel on the grounds that the questions were argumentative or based on prejudicial facts not in evidence.
- Closing Argument. Carrera “also contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by again asserting as proven facts on which no evidence had been introduced: (1) that defendant might have attempted to escape in order to confront and threaten witnesses; (2) that defendant made four separate admissions to four separate people that he and Ruiz killed the couple; (3) that the female victim ‘had her wrist cut off’ during the attack; (4) that defendant threatened to stab Teresa’s brother and had others ‘beat up witnesses” to silence them; (5) that defendant’s concern with being seen as a ‘snitch’ showed he was part of a ‘gang’ or had a ‘gang mentality’; (6) that the victims were tortured; (7) that the killings were premeditated; and (8) that the defendant asked Santana, ‘Have you ever killed before?’ – implying that he might previously have murdered someone.”
- Trial Court Errors. Carrera argued that the trial court “permitted, exacerbated or failed to cure the impact of the above instances of alleged prosecutorial. He briefly asserts … that the prosecutor’s misconduct was so pervasive that the court on its own motion should have either admonished the jury to disregard the questions and closing argument or granted a mistrial.”
Let us be clear about one thing: based exclusively on the actions of the prosecutor during closing argument, we believe there was egregious misconduct in the Carrera case. We also believe that from the outset, the prosecution had a singular overriding objective: secure a death penalty verdict against Carrera. This was evidenced by the prosecution’s deliberate strategy of removing from the jury pool as many prospective Hispanic jurors as possible. Race, no matter how slight, should never be a factor in either the decision to pursue, or the efforts to secure, the death penalty, especially in light of that penalty’s corrupt, insidious history in American criminal justice.
Further, while we appreciate that the nature and circumstances in a case like Carrera’s can be daunting, if not overwhelming, for a court-appointed attorney, Carrera’s appointed attorney failed him at virtually every step of the proceedings. First, defense counsel filed, and then withdrew, the motion to quash. Counsel thereafter did not make aWheelerobjection. This precluded this issue from being heard on direct appeal to the California Supreme Court.
The recenten bancdecision by the Ninth Circuit underscores the impact of this failure. Carrera argued before the federal appeals court that counsel’s failure to make theWheelerobjection satisfied both the deficiency and prejudice components necessary to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Strickland v. Washington. As pointed out by the Ninth Circuit, to establish an ineffective assistance claim based on the failure to make theWheelerobjection, Carrera had to show he would have likely succeeded in getting his conviction reversed by the California Supreme Court on direct appeal because of the prosecution’s decision to exclude potential jurors with Hispanic surnames before he could satisfy the “prejudice” component ofStrickland. Put briefly, it is not enough for a state prisoner do show that his counsel was deficient; he must show that the deficiency prejudiced him to the extent that there is a “reasonable probability” no jury would have found him guilty absent the deficient performance.
Folks, for an indigent state prisoner (particularly from a minority group) to satisfy both components of theStricklandstandard, it is tantamount to finding an needle and threading it in the middle of the proverbial hay stack on the flatbed of an 18-wheeler doing 80 mph down the interstate in 20-degree weather. In the Carrera case, it meant that because the prosecution seated two jurors with Hispanic surnames, he could did not establish aStricklandclaim based on the failure to make aWheelerobjection. That is the law. We cannot argue that the Ninth Circuit misappliedStrickland. We cannot even argue that Carrera’s conviction would have been reversed on direct appeal had theWheelerobjection been made at trial because we do not know enough about the facts of the case to draw that conclusion.
But we can argue that counsel had a professional duty to make theWheelerobjection. We comfortably reach this conclusion because Carrera’s attorney also failed to object to the following instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct: use of tainted testimony; improper direct examination; abusive cross-examination; and improper closing argument. This also precluded these misconduct issues from being heard on direct appeal under California law. Counsel on appeal argued that the trial court should have controlled this prosecutorial misconduct, but as the California Supreme Court pointed out: “… a trial court has no sua sponte duty to control prosecutorial misconduct.”
We can say with a firm belief that Constantino Carrera did not receive a fair trial, and while his death sentence was ultimately vacated, the serious constitutional errors that undermined his right to a fair and impartial trial were shuffled away from any meaningful consideration because appointed counsel failed to make timely objections. Thus the denial of Carrera’s right to a fair trial was not only caused by the prosecution’s misconduct but also by his defense attorney’s failure to timely object.
The Constantino Carrera case exemplifies that far from being liberal bastions of constitutional relief for “convicted criminals,” courts at both the state and federal level—even courts with “liberal” reputations, like those is California—will go out of their way to uphold a constitutionally infirm state conviction. This is why defense counsel must be ever mindful, ever diligent in making timely objections at every stage of the criminal proceedings based on perceived or real errors. The trial courts have nosua sponteduty to do it for them. The failure to do so will result in the judicial outcomes reached in the Carrera case.
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
John Floyd id Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Take the first step toward protecting your freedom by contacting us now
Testimonials
John T. Floyd Law Firm
3730 Kirby Drive # 750, Houston
-
If you have hired attorneys that meet the Webster dictionary definition, ie: "Attorney " is a person that has a law degree, will not be totally honest, can take your money … More and not earn it, will put you off until he is ready to talk to you, and/or never study your case to be able to defend you. Mr. Floyd is the only attorney that doesn't fit that definition!! You will be delighted to have Mr. John Floyd in your corner! Not one attorney that I have ever met that would ever return a check that I sent to him, because he said I paid him too much! Wow! That right there should tell you something about his integrity!!!!! He has a very calm demeanor and doesn't stretch the truth even if you don't want to hear it, he will tell you the truth. Call and set up an appointment with him and judge for yourself. You are wasting time and money on any other attorney, just hire the best, Mr. Floyd.
-
John T. Floyd and his team are some of the best people! I was able to get a second opinion from them on legal advice. His team has been honest, kind, and very informative which has … More been a huge blesssing.
-
I highly recommend John T. Floyd Lawfirm. They are truly knowledgeable and willing to go the extra mile to defend your innocence. Psalms 35
-
Outstanding!Professional knowledge. Rich experiences. Good outcome.
-
-
The best lawyer I ever encounter with a very good personality. He’s very professional and he will go far and beyond for his clients best interest. He’s definitely a 5 star attorney … More when it comes to delivering. I couldn’t be more happier that I hired him !! 👏👏👏👏
-
-
I can honestly say from what I have seen so far, Floyd is a compassionate soul who cares for his client's. Floyd is by far very knowledgeable in this area. He's currently … More assisting my [Father] on a sex assault. We are all suffering so much as my father is an elder man, but we have faith in God, and Mr. Floyd he can dismissed this outrageous allegation soon. Thank you, yoli
-
I had wonderful experience with this law firm. They were so helpful and knowledgeable of the process.my case was dismissed because of Mr John T Floyd,thank you for everything .
-
I am very happy today my case dismissed God bless Mr John T Floyd very good lawyer thanks you so mush sir
-
I had a great experience with this Law Firm, the kind staff helped me locate a Lawyer even though they were unable to take my case.
They were very helpful, kind and returned my call … More in a timely manner. I would definitely recommend them and use them in the future. -
I can tell that Jone is an excellent attorney in Houston. Personally, he is a great man. In addition to great service and amazing results. Recommended
-
Mr. Floyd is an incredible attorney and human being. He cares about your case, the facts, the law, and your life! I am sorry for whatever situation you are going through, but choosing … More Mr. Floyd, his firm, and their professional experience to help you, will be the best decision you ever make!
-
John T Floyd is a straight shooter! He was very direct and responsive to my phone calls and questions. I was in awe of his knowledge, and professional decorum! The best decision that … More you could make is to schedule a consultation with him before considering anyone else!
-
I asked the Law Office of John T. Floyd a very important question regarding the legal aspects of purchasing a firearm with a deferred adjudication charge. They answered the question … More very professionally and accurately and I was quite pleased with the information that was shared. I recommend this law firm because they are very honest and will work for you and with you.
-
I’ve never been one to write reviews but this time I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to say something. I had some serious legal questions I needed answers to concerning Texas laws. … More Being I’m from another state, I found and reached out to Attorney John Floyd for the answers. Mr Floyd listened to to my requests and told me what he need from me and went out of his way to get me the answers. Very polite, straightforward and professional, I can’t thank him enough for all he’s done. Whatever your legal case may be, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Mr Floyd.
-
John & Chris helped my family member get a reduced charge and acceptable plea agreement in place. Their compassion, attention to every detail was what helped carry the day.Truly … More the best of the best.P
-
Mr. Floyd is both ethical and loyal to his clients; two qualities that are hard to find specially in lawyers. I'd definitely recommend him to anyone.Positive
Professionalism …More … More -
Mr. John was very helpful and truly was the reason why my case was dismissed. Thank you so much Mr. John I truly recommend everyone in need to work with him.
-
His service to the community and diligence to helping his clients speaks for its self! Not to mention the many articles, papers and TV appearances that speak to his intellect
-
John has given Excellent service and have been very friendly and extremely helpful to us. I highly recommend this law firm
-
This law firm is diligent, responsive and succeeded in getting my case dismissed. 10/10 would recommend.
-
super knowledgeable, good attitude, would definitely recommend him
-
Very helpful, knowledgeable and honest.
-
John is an amazing person and lawyer who is actually very understanding of how anxious I got and although it was hard to reach him sometimes because of his schedule, but never worry … More he is on top of things. He is very organized, very smart. I had the experience to go through a trial with him, and he always plans ahead well and is actually open and receptive to any ideas and comments I had and he was quick to decide which is right to use at the moment. I really appreciated working with him and Chris. Great lawyers and great people. As I was reminded by John, I am adding that the Jury reached a not guilty decision on the original charge and on a lesser charge in just 25 minutes. It took more time to write the charge and instructions for the jury than it took them to reach a decision.
-
Highly recommend John T Floyd law firm, great response time and demeanor.I was researching an on-going criminal case, when I found an informative article written by John Floyd (about … More the perils of expert testimony). I called his office, and was very pleased to receive a timely call back. Not only was Mr. Floyd candid and helpful, but he had the kindest demeanor of any attorney that I've dealt with. I am so glad to have found this firm.
-
Although I am not a client, John Floyd contacted me the same day I sent an email requesting advice, answered my questions and even when further to assist with my issue and communicated … More with me the next day. A true credit to his profession and I can only imagine how well he provides services to his actual clients!
-
I give Mr. Floyd 10 Stars if they were available so I'm giving him five that's all that's available. The first time I left a message for him it was on a Friday after … More 5 p.m. and within 15 minutes he called me back I told him I needed to buy a lotto ticket because that has never happened. I knew from our chat and him calling me back that he was different from any attorney I've tried to talk to left messages never got called back they didn't even know what I needed and neither did Mr. Floyd but he did call me back. I was very interested in meeting with mr. Floyd about my case because I felt he was very transparent honest and genuine. If you've ever dealt with attorneys they don't have those traits but Mr. Floyd does. He was very honest with me told me what I could and could not do with my case. He is not egotistical he's very compassionate and he actually reads the documents you sent him unbelievable that's never happened. He will be the only lawyer I refer to anyone that needs his expertise. If you're in need of a criminal defense attorney please give John T Floyd a call you will not be disappointed.
-
Mr John is a great human being and a very knowledgeable attorney. He has always called me back promptly,advised me very clearly and never rushed our conversation. i was wrongfully accused … More and Mr John had my case DISMISSED!! on the day of trial after fighting for me for two years. I am very thankful to the John T. Floyd Law Firm. You will not go wrong with John. Mr John you deserve way more then 5 stars.Thank youShaikh.
-
John Floyd Law Firm is highly recommended for your legal needs. He and his staff are highly professional in every aspect. Easy and comfortable feeling talking with him, and he understands … More your needs and explains your legal advice in a way you can understand. Enough just cant be said. Thank You Sir.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John was kind enough to assist me with legal advise on my firearm gun rights restoration. I highly recommend him and his firm. Very professional and knowledgeable. If I need assistance … More in the future I will definitely go back to him.
-
What I liked the most was that he actually returned my phone after leaving a message unlike pretty much everyone else I called prior. He listened and answered my question with the best … More advice that would benefit me the most. I was actually lost from moving to Texas from a different state we’re laws vary and he pointed me toward the right direction to get a understanding of if I need to do business with him now or after I contact a lawyer in my home state.
-
John T Floyd handled my sons case & got a dismissal for us! He is great to work with, gets back to you promptly & knows what he’s doing. Definitely one of the best we have had … More to deal with!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John is honestly the best! The whole team is. He answered me in a timely manner and helped me when my friend was going through a situation in Houston, Texas as an inmate. He was so … More thorough, honest, and without charging me sent me so much information because I was out of the loop. He never once tried to take you for your money, he did all that he could to. help me and I can't thank him enough.
-
I have used John on two occasions and found him to have full knowledge of Texas law, diligent, creative in plan, and aggressive in defense. He is the best criminal defense attorney … More in the State of Texas. No reason to look elsewhere.
-
I have been calling to get some legal advice pertaining to gun rights. A few legal offices would not even take my call because quote " your not a client and Im losing money. … More I I called John T. Floyd Law Firm and they were not only able to answer my question, but gave great detail information, and further elaborated on their answer. I hope I do not have to use them in the future, but if I do need to, they will be my first call.
-
Great lawyer! Needed some advice and gave me a Consultation, and advice for steps to take, without any hassle l, Was a honest guy and actually wanted to help me and not just take my … More money! Highly recommend!!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Attorney Floyd replied very timely to my inquiry and he provided practical advice. I will not hesitate to contact him in the future if I need additional legal counsel.
-
Highly recommend, down to earth lawyer. Talked to me about my legal issues without being super money hungry and genuinely wanted to help me with my legal problems. 5 stars ⭐️.
-
Very knowledgeable and professional. I called and left a message Friday morning and before end of business that day I received a call back.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism … More …More -
Very helpful highly recommended for any Question / case will definitely keep he's name and number for any other legal advice
-
Excellent service and a lawyer that doesn't lie. He does what he says. JW recommends him.
-
One of the best services Ive used in awhile. Thank you for all the help and answers. You got my life back. Thank youPositive
Quality …More -
Im impressed. This guy was polite and professional and most important...he listened.
-
Good experience and very good lawyer
-
-
-
Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, ValueMore -
It was a pleasure speaking with John. He is knowledgeable and has a true desire to help the people of society. I turned to him for some guidance of a long-standing issue. He never … More rushed our conversation and went out of his way to look into the details to provide the right answer as well as assist me anyway he could. Thank you for our conversations and I wish your and your firm the best. If you need a lawyer, John Floyd is your guy!
-
John represented me in court for roughly 2 years. I won't (and shouldn't) get into any serious details, but let me tell you that I couldn't have chosen anyone better. … More Seriously.Every appearance in court I felt very comfortable. The judge and DA's had a high regard for his reputation. There is a time I recall where simply his presence greatly impacted the court's interpretation of my case and persons. We were in front of the stand and the judge could not stop talking about John's prestige and past accomplishments and how that took in relation to my case. I kept silent in front of the judge, but I observed then that John's popularity and reputation within the court had already given me a better looking rapport with the judge. Let me tell you, I never had more confidence then, knowing that the judge held him in such high regard.This is not to mention how personable John is. I'll be honest that during the stress of court, sharing a laugh with your lawyer helps a lot. This may sound a lot, but I really appreciated the relationship we had then. This is also not to mention that he was able to deal very well with any DA that rotated over the years. Seriously, John was great, prompt with information and very hands on with my case. I had great peace those 2 years until everything wrapped up.If you're looking for a lawyer, I highly, HIGHLY recommend the John T. Floyd Law Firm. He IS nationally renowned, you know. He'll get the job done to the utmost confidence. He's very experienced and has a great record to boot. I am glad to have had him represent me in court and trust me that I never thought I'd ever say that (and whoever does?). We explored every avenue of victory together and I personally enjoyed the experience, despite the seriousness of the accusation.If you have a case that needs to be represented at the highest levels, choose John T. Floyd. He's a good man and very good at what he does. Him and his team has the experience you need to make the best decisions and options to get the best outcome for your case. We got the best result I could possibly ask for, thank God.Seriously. Hire John. He knows what he's doing.Seriously.
-
One of the few honest lawyers I have ever talked to. His complimentary consultation was knowledgeable and thorough. He knew exactly what the issue was and how to handle it. His candid … More appraisal of the situation and how to proceed saved me thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you have a case requiring expertise in John's area of practice, look no further. Hire this man!
-
I had the opportunity to read an article that Mr. Floyd wrote and it was very interesting. I called him about the article and advice concerning a similar situation. He not only gave … More me excellent advice, he pointed out not just what I wanted to hear but what I needed to hear concerning my situation. The Good, The Bad and The ugly in a manner or speaking. He spoke with an open and honest heart with information to help me and not just to get a client.
-
If you are in trouble and need a lawyer, contact the John T. Floyd law firm. Some of the best lawyers in Texas work there! Understanding and helpful lawyers and staff that will do all … More they can to help you 😊
-
He gave me one of the most honest answers I have received in a very long time about any issue I was having with anything. Legal or not legal. I highly recommend giving him a call and … More will be referring him to friends and family if they have any issues in the future.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He took time out of his day to answer my legal questions and didn’t even charge me. I would definitely recommend him to you.
-
Gave free consultation on getting gun rights back. He truly cares about gun rights and getting you the help you deserve. 100% worth a callPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, … More Value …More -
Very professional, great quality work, and very friendly and helpful. Overall, their service is phenomenal. I recommend Mr. Floyd to anyone.
-
Mr. Floyd took the time to explain his experience with the law to me in layman's terms. Definitely give him a call.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He was honest , knowledgeable , and professional about what we talked about. Most lawyers are just about the money , but not john.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He was very truthful and honest with us very great man I would recommend him and we would use him again
-
Very professional honest and works hard currently working my husband’s appeal I pray he does his best workPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I contacted John T. Floyd Law firm and I was very satisfied with service extremely helpful and friendly thank you Mr. FloydPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More … More -
This law frim was informative,great response time ,and the attorney called back not some secretary or legal assistant thank u guys for all your help wish it was more like youPositive … More
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I would highly recommend Mr Floyd. He was very helpful and knowledge with a legal question I had.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He explained my case better then any other lawyerPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Very informative
-
-
-
-
Had the pleasure speaking with John Floyd on a personal matter, he was very responsive, nothing but exceptional, and he really cares about you with sincerity and most importantly knows … More what is he talking about! No games or bs, his approach to my situation even though I knew it was probably way smaller then what he normally takes on, he was extremely helpful and didn't care about the size of the matter like other attorneys do. He really looked out for my best interests. You can tell he has decades of experience doing what he does just by chatting with him. I would highly recommend him.
-
Words can’t describe how grateful I am for working with John, he went above and beyond my expectation. I was wrongly accused and hired many lawyers before hiring John Floyd but they … More all disappointed me, I had lost hope until a friend of mine referred me to John. From the start he had my best interest in mind and gave helpful advice, he explained the process and guided me. He put more work and time than all my previous lawyers that cost me thousands of dollars. He was constantly communicating with court and defended me more than all lawyer i had hired before him. Don’t waste your time and money like I did, believe me when I say I hired countless lawyers before him and no one came close to John. I’m forever thankful for him for fighting for my innocence and getting my case dismissed. Thank you so much🙏🏼🙏🏼
-
I called Mr Floyd and left a message, with in the hour I received a call back with much more information then I could have ever expected. Mr Floyd was very informative on every question … More I had for him. He seemed like he cared, instead of like most attorneys that you talk to that are just out for a quick buck. If you want someone that is going to shoot strait with you, and has your best interest in hand, this is you guy. This was the best experience that I have ever had with an lawyer.
-
I can state with confidence that Mr. Floyd and his team are the most competent and professional lawyers one can hope for. My case was quite complex and I admit that as a law student … More I was not the most patient client. Mr. Floyd did a phenomenal job of managing the bench, prosecution and myself! The result was above expectation, and I will never hesitate to recommend this firm regardless of the caliber of the case at issue.
-
It was a pleasure working with Mr. Floyd. I contacted him regarding a legal matter and he was extremely knowledgeable about the law, and responded in a timely manner. I appreciated … More the fact I did not feel rushed, and he made sure he thoroughly answered all questions I had. I would highly recommend him!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
Spoke with John Floyd about a 45 year old criminal case I was involved in. I had very little information about the case and John helped me search what records were available and gave … More me guidance to find more information. He was very professional and took his time helping me. I may need to hire a lawyer on this case and Mr. Floyd will be the man.Thanks John.
-
Very professional and straight forward. He's not going to waste your time or money. Very knowledgeable in a large range of possible matters one could face living in these days … More and times. If ever you need legal assistance, this is who I would suggest. Awesome!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I called about some legal questions I needed to get clarified and John was able to give me clarification and sound advice. I will definitely contact John for all future legal questions … More and issues.Thank you John!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism, Value …More -
Knows his stuff and well respected with DA and judges. I have referred him a couple times and every client has been satisfied
-
John is beyond knowledgeable! If I decide to pursue my case any further I would only have him represent me.
-
What a great attorney, this guy really took time out of his day to answer my questions and explain my case to me. Very grateful, thank you so muchPositive
Professionalism …More -
Absolutely a very professional lawyer. Very well read in the current law and more than willing to help if needed.
-
Mr. John he’s a professional he knows what he’s doing and he’s patient they recommend Him stronglyPositive
Professionalism …More -
Great service, very knowledgable and happy to help with any questions I had
-
Quick to action and helpful and knowledgeable with entertainment industry based issues!
-
Responded on a holiday week. Very knowledgeable and reassuring.
-
Very professional
-
-
-
-
I want to thank John T. Floyd and all of his team. He is the best lawyer who cares aboutHis clients and fights really hard to get the best outcome. He is a fighter and he is awesome!!!I … More recommend if any one needs criminal defense , he is the BEST. We had a really serious caseAnd we are very thankful for the outcome. Thank you John!!!!! God bless you!!!!!!
-
The attorneys at John T. Floyd Law Firm work diligently to achieve the best possible results for their clients. They are caring and knowledgeable professionals. Their expertise in the … More law and their experience as trial attorneys makes them the right choice as a defense attorney. I recommend this law firm highly.
-
From beginning to end this firm handled my case like the top tier professionals they are. I would not trust ANYONE else with my legal needs after having less than stellar experiences … More with other teams. Thank you Floyd!!!
-
I really felt like the team cared about my case and am super satisfied with the outcome. Would not recommend anyone else!
-
These guys do amazing work and have phenomenal service! Hands down best in the Houston area!!
-
John and Chris are true professionals! Love those guys like family!
-
Mr. Floyd and his team are very knowledgeable, informative, and helpful.
-
A team you can depend on to stand up and fight for you to prove the truth the whole truth!
-
-
Mr. John T. Floyd represented me.I couldn't be happier with the outcome he managed to achieve on an VERY Important case that was dismissed the day of Trial. He is patient & … More very knowledgeable of the legal system. I HIGHLY recommend him to anyone in need of a lawyer!John, I am forever grateful & satisfied with the effort you put forth & all you did for me. Thank you isn't enough!God bless you & your family!
-
The John T. Floyd Law Firm assisted me, and I can tell you that the attorney took the time to answer my questions, and I didn't feel rushed or dismissed as I have experienced in … More the past with attorneys. The attorney was very nice and extremely knowledgeable. Initial impressions and continued excellent customer service are big factors for me and as such I would highly recommend this firm.
-
I thank you for your efforts to help Felons regain their Civil rights, and for the information on possession , I am A convicted Felon, no violent history. I am an expert shot, I am … More 76 yoa, and very concerned about the present lake of Security in our State and Country. God Bless and Prosper you in your efforts, Your friend, Sonny Bivens
-
I really appreciated both Chris and John helping with my legal questions and concerns. Both are good guys and I would not hesitate to recommend them.
-
Extremely helpful!!! Helping me understand the law.
John T. Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Request A Confidential Consultation
Fields marked with an * are required
"*" indicates required fields
Copyright © 2024 John T. Floyd Law Firm • All rights reserved.
Designed & Developed by
