Legal Opinion · Dissent

in Re Stephen Louis Hartman

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided April 16, 2014No. 09-13-00579-CRPublished

1DissentLeanne Johnson, Justice

I agree that some of the statements on the remainder of the audio recording are “relevant.”3 And, depending upon the scope and content of the testimony of the witnesses and evidence at trial, one or more of those statements may be exculpatory or impeachment evidence in the trial because the excluded portion of the audio recording appears to specifically contain conversations between one or more witnesses about the underlying alleged Hartman incident. But, I cannot agree with the majority regarding its result because the facts simply are not ripe for mandamus review at this time. Additionally,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Kyles v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Pennsylvania v. RitchieSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKSCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2013
  5. Quinones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1980

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API