Blog
SUPREME COURT CHANGES CONFESSION LANDSCAPE
Montejo v. Louisiana; Suspects in Criminal Investigations Must Invoke Right to Counsel and Remain Silent, Even if Represented by Counsel
By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson often warned his judicial colleagues that the court was “forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added.”
In May, 2009, The Supreme Court removed a story from the constitutional rules protecting criminal suspects against police-coerced confessions. A criminal defense attorney’s most dreaded hurdle is incriminating statements obtained from his/her client outside the presence of legal counsel. The Supreme Court’s latest excursion into this constitutional arena has resulted in a definitive ruling that will make it easier for prosecutors and law enforcement authorities to secure such statements from criminal defendants, even those who are known to be represented by counsel.
St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes are located in the southeastern corner of the state of Louisiana. It is an ultra-conservative part of the state—a region that sent former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke to the Louisiana Legislature and voted overwhelmingly for the former Klan leader in his narrowly failed bid to become a U.S. Senator in the 1990s. The death penalty is a natural byproduct of this region’s conservative political mindset.
Lewis Ferrari owned nine dry-cleaning businesses in St. Tammany Parish and one in Tangipahoa Parish. So it was inevitable that his brutal murder in 2002 would demand the death penalty.
On September 5, 2002, Lewis left one of his business establishments where his wife worked and went to a local grocery. When her husband failed to show up for a dinner engagement with her that evening at a local restaurant, Patricia Lewis drove to their home where she found the garage door open and her husband’s car missing. She entered the residence where she found bagged groceries on the counter and her husband lying dead on the floor. The 61-year-old Ferrari had been shot once in the face and once in the chest.
Law enforcement officials quickly learned that Lewis Ferrari was a creature of habit that followed the same routine each day. The day he was killed was “payroll Thursday”—the day he transported money, deposits and checks in the trunk of his vehicle. On payroll Thursday he was always home between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. with a large quantity of money. Patricia and Lewis always met at 6:00 p.m. at a local restaurant for a family meal.
Almost as soon as the criminal investigation began law enforcement officials focused their attention on Jerry Moore, former disgruntled employee of Lewis Ferrari and a person who had a long term stormy relationship with murder victim. The Ferrari family knew Moore was familiar with Lewis’s “payroll Thursday” routine. The family conveyed these suspicions to the police. The police soon produced sufficient evidence to arrest Moore as the person who planned the crime and Jessie Jay Montejo and Eric Gai, Montejo’s half brother, as the individuals who carried out the robbery/murder.
All three men were arrested. On September 6, 2002, between 4:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., and on September 7, 2002, between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m., Montejo was interrogated by the police. The suspect had been advised of his right to remain silent before he was actually taken to the police station and again before the actual interviews began. The interviews were also videotaped. In addition, as the custodial interrogations continued over the next several days, Montejo signed seven written rights/waiver forms. During the interrogation process, Montejo gave investigators a series of statements which initially implicated Moore but gradually escalated his own involvement in the crime. At one point during the interrogation process on September 6—at about 10:00 p.m.—Montejo invoked his right to counsel but immediately revoked that request by inviting additional questions from investigators. Montejo was interrogated again on September 9 and 10, each time revoking his right to counsel, and finally admitted to the detectives that he shot Ferrari when the businessman unexpectedly returned home and discovered his home being burglarized.
On September 10, 2002, before he was interrogated the last time by detectives, Montejo was brought before the court per law Louisiana law for a “preliminary examination,” at which he was informed by the court that he was being charged with first degree murder and that a public defender had been appointed to represent him. Montejo did not request a lawyer, he remained silent. Later that afternoon the detectives who had been involved in the previous interrogation sessions visited Montejo in the parish jail. They did not know an attorney had been appointed to represent the accused man. The detectives asked Montejo to accompany them to a local lake where he had indicated the murder weapon had been discarded. Montejo was once again advised of his right to remain silent but agreed to accompany the detectives. During this trip, Montejo wrote an incriminating letter of apology to Patricia Lewis in which he admitted that he had killed Lewis Ferrari.
Montejo’s attorney was waiting at the jail when the detectives returned with his client. The attorney was not pleased that the detectives had questioned Montejo outside of his presence. On September 23, 2002, the attorney filed a motion to suppress all the statements Montejo had given to the police, including the incriminating letter of apology. He based his motion on a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Michigan v. Jackson which held that once a criminal defendant had requested counsel at arraignment or any other similar pretrial proceeding, or who was actually represented by counsel, law enforcement officials could not interview him/her outside the presence of counsel. 1/ The trial court denied the motion, and all the incriminating statements and apology letter were heard by a jury in March 2005. The jury convicted Montejo of first degree murder and he was sentenced to death.
Montejo’s case worked its way up the appeals ladder until it reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation’s high court agreed to hear the case because it offered an opportunity to revisit and effectively overrule the Jackson precedent which has always been highly unpopular with law enforcement and prosecutors. The Jackson precedent created a bright-line constitutional rule that the Fifth Amendment right to silence could not effectively be enforced absent the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The Jackson decision was one in a line of cases by the Supreme Court that sought to establish the parameters of the Fifth Amendment’s right to silence—the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself—pronounced by the court in 1966 in Miranda v. Arizona. 2/ Miranda established prophylactic rules designed to protect a criminal defendant from law enforcement coercion during custodial interrogations.
Miranda became probably the most despised decision by law enforcement of any decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. The police have always perceived the rights to silence and to an attorney before a custodial interrogation not as a constitutional safeguard against coercion but as deliberate liberal attempt to undermine law enforcement’s primary objective to “get at the truth.” The problem with this view is that the “truth,” in the custodial interrogation process, has historically been defined by law enforcement as obtaining confessions through deception and coercion, both physical and psychological, as deemed necessary. And an attorney who challenged the police’s right to secure such a confession, whether true or false, by the “any means necessary” tactic and a judge who dared suppress such a confession, were “bleeding heart liberals” who believed in “coddling criminals.”
The law enforcement and conservative political backlash from Miranda became so intense that the Supreme Court toward the end of the “Warren court era” began to chisel away at the decision’s boundaries. For example, in 1974 the court in Michigan v. Tucker held that while the Miranda warnings were designed to protect against Fifth Amendment violations, their application had to be circumscribed in order to the serve societal interests of capturing and punishing criminals. 3/ Three years later the court further chipped away at Miranda in Brewer v. Williams, holding that the rights to silence and counsel can be waived provided the relinquishment of the rights are voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. 4/
But in 1981 the court in Edwards v. Arizona decided to slow the judicial march against Miranda. 5/ In that case the defendant had been arrested and read his Miranda rights. He requested an attorney and the police stopped interrogating him. But a different set of detectives from the same police department returned the following day and started up a new interrogation. The defendant confessed to the crimes he was suspected of committing during this second interrogation. The state and lower federal courts upheld the confession. The Supreme Court disagreed, making three significant findings: 1) that after the defendant asserted his right to silence/counsel and the police returned to question him and secured a confession without providing him with counsel, the confession could not be used against him; 2) that the defendant did not waive his right to counsel because there was no finding that he understood the right sufficient enough to have knowingly relinquished it; and 3) that once defendant asserted his right to counsel there could be no further interrogations without the benefit of counsel, unless the defendant initiated additional communications with the police.
Four years after the Edwards decision, the Supreme Court in Jackson effectively imported the Miranda/Edwards Fifth Amendment right to silence into the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel by saying that a request for counsel at arraignment should be considered as an invocation of the right “at every critical stage of the prosecution.” Moreover, Jackson created a highly-criticized presumption of an involuntary waiver of counsel “based on the supposition that suspects who assert their right to counsel are unlikely to waive that right voluntarily” in subsequent interactions with the police. 6/ Jackson effectively established a “bright-line” rule that once a criminal defendant is represented by counsel, the State cannot under any circumstances re-approach him/her requesting that he/she waive their right to counsel and consent to additional interrogation.
In 1990 the Supreme Court followed up the Edwards and Jackson decisions with Minnick v. Mississippi. 7/ In that case Robert Minnick and a fellow prisoner escaped from a county jail in Mississippi. They later broke into a mobile home and killed two of the residents in it. When arrested, Minnick requested and was allowed to speak with an attorney. Not satisfied, the FBI and state investigators pressured Minnick to waive his rights to silence/counsel. Minnick resisted the pressure but eventually submitted to the interrogations without an attorney and made incriminating statements. The Supreme Court held that Minnick’s Fifth Amendment right to silence was not terminated simply because he had consulted with an attorney. The court said that once Minnick requested counsel, all interrogations had to cease and could not be reinstated outside the presence of counsel.
Both Edwards and Minnick were instrumental in the Supreme Court’s decision to effectively overrule Jackson in Montejo. This was made clear by the court’s language in Montejo:
“Which brings us to the strength of Jackson’s reasoning. When this Court creates a prophylactic rule in order to protect a constitutional right, the relevant ‘reasoning’ is the weighing of the rule’s benefits against its costs. ‘The value of any prophylactic rule … must be assessed not only on the basis of what is gained, but also on the basis of what is lost.’ We think that the marginal benefits of Jackson (viz., the number of confessions obtained coercively that are suppressed by its bright-line rule and would otherwise have been admitted) are dwarfed by its substantial costs (viz., hindering ‘society’s compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law …’).
“What does Jackson actually achieve by way of preventing unconstitutional conduct? Recall that the purpose of the rule is to preclude the State from badgering defendants into waiving their previously asserted rights. The effect of this badgering might be to coerce a waiver, which would render the subsequent interrogation a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Even though involuntary waivers are invalid even apart from Jackson, mistakes are of course possible when courts conduct case-by-case voluntariness review. A bright-line rule like that adopted in Jackson ensures that no fruits of interrogation made possible by badgering-induced involuntary waivers are ever erroneously admitted at trial.
“But with Jackson, how many would be? The answer is few if any. The principal reason is that the Court has already taken substantial other, overlapping measures toward the same end. Under Miranda’s prophylactic protection of the right against compelled self incrimination, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation has the right to have a lawyer present if he so requests, and to be advised of that right. Under Edwards’ prophylactic protection of the Miranda right, once such a defendant ‘has invoked the right to have counsel present,’ interrogation must stop. And under Minnick’s prophylactic protection of the Edwards right, no subsequent interrogation may take place until counsel is present, ‘whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney.’
“The three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. Under the Miranda-Edwards-Minnick line of cases (which is not in doubt), a defendant who does not want to speak to the police without counsel present need only say as much when he is first approached and given the Miranda warnings. At that point, not only must the immediate contact end, but ‘badgering’ by later requests is prohibited. If that regime suffices to protect the integrity of ‘a suspect’s voluntary choice not to speak outside his lawyer’s presence before his arraignment,’ it is hard to see why it would not also suffice to protect that same choice after arraignment, when the Sixth Amendment rights have attached. And if so, then Jackson is simply superfluous.” 8/
Lawyers for Montejo had argued in the state courts and before the Supreme Court that Jackson was designed to protect both the defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights—silence and counsel—throughout the accusatory process while Edwards-Minnick apply only to custodial interrogations. The court dismissed this distinction by saying that a suspect not in custody is in complete control of his situation. He can get up and walk out of a police interview at any point. The court then pointed out that Jackson was “policy driven,” and since the policy against coerced confessions could be adequately protected by the Miranda-Edwards-Minnick prophylactic rules, there was no constitutional need to maintain the Jackson protection. In fact, the court said Jackson’s per se exclusionary rule of incriminating statements obtained absent the presence of counsel actually served to let guilty and dangerous criminals go free even though they had been adequately and properly Mirandized. The court said it had reached the point where it was no longer willing to accept the substantial costs that Jackson imposed on “the truth-seeking process and the criminal justice system” in order to prevent a handful of possibly coerced confessions. 9/
The court, however, did not completely slam the door on Montejo. It said he deserved an “opportunity” to show that the letter of apology he wrote to Patricia Lewis when he accompanied the police to the local lake after having been appointed counsel was inadmissible evidence under the Edwards rule, provided he could show that he made a “clear assertion of the right to counsel” when the police asked him to accompany them to the lake. The rest of his incriminating statements, however, were fair game for the jury.
Law enforcement officials and prosecutors embraced the Montejo decision. They have been dissatisfied with both Miranda and Jackson for some time. Montejo proved to be the right case to remove the Jackson prohibition preventing the police from trying to get a suspect to waive his right to counsel after counsel has been appointed. Montejo has been found guilty of a brutal murder. He is under a death sentence. A strict application of Jackson would have barred any references Montejo made about the murder weapon supposedly being thrown in the lake and his letter of apology to Patricia Lewis—both of which were critical to the prosecution to overcome the conflicting versions of the crime he had made in his previous seven statements. Absent the letter of apology and references to the murder weapon, a jury may not have returned a death penalty verdict.
While as the Supreme Court pointed out the overruling of Jackson will not have any significant impact on the experienced, sophisticated criminal defendant who understand the custodial interrogation process, it will strip away a significant constitutional safeguard for the inexperienced and mentally challenged suspects who actually make up most of those arrested for suspected criminal wrongdoing. We believe the loss of the Jackson bright-line protections will lead to an increased number of false confessions. Many criminal defendants will waive their right to counsel, agree to additional custodial interrogations and “tell them” what they want to hear in an effort to please prosecutors and law enforcements officials in hopes of minimizing their exposure to prosecution.
Tragically, Montejo put another nail in the coffin of the age-old axiom that it is better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. Montejo reversed the axiom: better one hundred innocent men be convicted than one guilty man go free.
SOURCES
1/ 475 U.S. 625 (1986)
2/384 U.S. 436 (1966)
3/ 417 U.S. 433 (1974)
4/487 U.S. 387 (1977)
5/454 U.S. 477 (1981)
6/475 U.S. at 633-35
7/498 U.S. 146 (1990)
8/173 L.Ed.2d 955, 968 (2009)
9/173 L.Ed.2d at 968
NOTE:The background facts of the Montejo crime gleaned from the Louisiana Supreme Court decision denying his direct appeal on January 16, 2008 in Case No. 86-KA-1887.
By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney 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
