Evidence

Brady v. Maryland and its progeny do not impose a general duty upon a prosecutor to listen to all recordings of inmate telephone calls held by the county telecommunications provider to search for exculpatory evidence for a defendant if the prosecutor would not do so otherwise.|Brady v. Maryland imposes a duty to discover whether the investigators and employees who listen to recorded inmate telephone calls find evidence favorable to a defendant in the recordings and, if so, to disclose that evidence to the defendant.|Brady v. Maryland imposes a duty upon the prosecutor to discover whether the investigators and employees who listen to recorded inmate telephone calls find evidence favorable to a defendant in the recordings and, if so, to disclose that evidence to the defendant.|A contract that provides a criminal district attorney's office with unfettered access to inmate telephone call recordings would likely be considered by a court as evidence in support of the criminal district attorney's office having possession, custody, or control of the recordings.|A contract that provides a criminal district attorney's office with unfettered access to inmate telephone call recordings would likely be considered by a court as evidence in support of the criminal district attorney's office having possession, custody, or control of inmate telephone call recordings.

Under Code of Criminal Procedure article 39.14(h), the Texas Forensic Science Commission has no duty to notify relevant parties of exculpatory, impeachment, or mitigating information.|Forensic Science Commission - Under Code of Criminal Procedure article 39.14(h), the Texas Forensic Science Commission has no duty to notify relevant parties of exculpatory, impeachment, or mitigating information.|Given the conclusion that the Texas Forensic Science Commission likely has no notification duties under Code of Criminal Procedure article 39.14(h), the Commission's prosecutor member would have only the duty to comply with article 39.14 that he or she would have in his or her capacity as a prosecutor for the state.|State

Forensic Science Commission, in its reasonable discretion, may refrain from granting an exemption from accreditation under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.01, subpart (4-d)(c), a court would likely conclude|Admissibility of forensic analysis of physical evidence, Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.35(d)(1) prevails over Texas Rule of Evidence 702 to extent of conflict|Forensic Science Commission - Admissibility of forensic analysis of physical evidence, Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.35(d)(1) prevails over Texas Rule of Evidence 702 to extent of conflict|"Forensic analysis" from a crime laboratory that is neither accredited by the Forensic Science Commission nor exempt from accreditation by statute or administrative rule is inadmissible in a criminal action in a Texas court under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.35(d)(1), a court would likely conclude that|Forensic Science Commission - "Forensic analysis" from a crime laboratory that is neither accredited by the Forensic Science Commission nor exempt from accreditation by statute or administrative rule is inadmissible in a criminal action in a Texas court under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.35(d)(1), a court would likely conclude that|Crime laboratory must report professional negligence or professional misconduct pertaining to forensic analysis in all disciplines - not just those that are accredited - to the Forensic Science Commission pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.01, subpart 4(a)(2), a court would likely conclude|Forensic Science Commission - Crime laboratory must report professional negligence or professional misconduct pertaining to forensic analysis in all disciplines - not just those that are accredited - to the Forensic Science Commission pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.01, subpart 4(a)(2), a court would likely conclude

Forensic Science Commission's accreditation authority over postmortem toxicological analysis|Medical examiners and forensic pathologists

Disclosure obligations of criminal district attorney under Code of Criminal Procedure article 39.14 when information is protected by attorney-client privilege or confidential under other law|Imputing knowledge from assistant criminal district attorneys performing civil duties to the prosecutor as "the State" for purposes of Code of Criminal Procedure article 39.14

Evidence tested or offered into evidence prior to effective date of enabling Act (Sept. 1, 2005), the Forensic Science Commission may conduct investigations of incidents that occurred before Act’s effective date but it is prohibited from considering|Forensic Science Commission’s investigative authority is limited to those laboratories, facilities, or entities that were accredited by the Department of Public Safety at the time forensic analyses took place|\\"Forensic analysis\\" has the precise meaning specified in the statutory language of article 38.35, Code of Criminal Procedure|Forensic analysis that is neither expressly included nor excluded by the Act or DPS rule, but that falls under the generic definition of \\"forensic analysis\\" found in section 38.35(a)(4), is generally subject to FSC investigation, assuming all other statutory requirements are satisfied|Forensic analysis that is neither expressly included nor excluded by the Act or DPS rule, but that falls under the generic definition of \\"forensic analysis\\" found in section 38.35(a)(4), is generally subject to Forensic Science Commission investigation, assuming all other statutory requirements are satisfied|Forensic analysis

Prosecutors should always take care that their handling of evidence in criminal cases comports with constitutional requirements|No statute or common-law cause of action, or any other legal authority of which we are aware empowers a court to order the destruction of evidence related to misdemeanor cases over which the court otherwise lacks jurisdiction|A court likely lacks authority to order the destruction of blood evidence related to misdemeanor cases that have been finally resolved

Evidentiary provisions of article 38.01, Code of Criminal Procedure, do not limit a report of the Science Advisory Workgroup created by the State Fire Marshal\\'s Office.|A determination about the admissibility of the Science Advisory Workgroup\\'s findings or the weight they are to be given by a judicial tribunal is for the tribunal.|Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.01 governing the Texas Forensic Science Commission does not limit any investigative authority that may be vested in the Science Advisory Workgroup created by the State Fire Marshal\\'s Office.|Neither Government Code chapter 417 nor Opinion GA-0866 limits the State Fire Marshal\\'s office from investigating and making findings on closed arson cases|State Fire Marshal\\'s Office - Article 38.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, governing the Texas Forensic Science Commission, does not limit any investigative authority that may be vested in the Science Advisory Workgroup created by the State Fire Marshal\\'s Office|State Fire Marshal\\'s Office - Attorney General Opinion GA-866 construes only Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.01, pertaining to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, and does not limit any authority of the Science Advisory Workgroup created by the State Fire Marshal\\'s Office

A court likely may, without a hearing, order a defendant’s rearrest to secure the defendant’s presence at a bond-revocation hearing, based on an officer’s sworn affidavit showing probable cause that the defendant has violated bond conditions.