SB 1611, which greatly alters Texas Discovery law, just passed the legislature and is headed to the Gov's Ofc. The bill's "analysis" states the following as the rational for the bill:

"Interested parties observe that a US Supreme Court ruling requires prosecutors to turn over to the def. any evidence that is relevant to the defendant's case, but express concern that the ruling is vague and open to interpretation, resulting in different levels of discovery across different counties in Texas. The parties contend that such inconsistency demonstrates a need to change the state's criminal discovery laws to ensure uniformity throughout Texas."

I have never heard of any US Supreme Court case that requires prosecutors to turn over to the defense "any evidence that is relevant." But then, I'm just a poor, dumb country prosecutor. Can someone find me the cite? I hate to look so ignorant.

Also, does anyone know who the "interested parties" are?

Inquiring minds want to know.

They're talking about Brady and its progeny, but I know what you're saying. You could make an entire thread highlighting the... creative? language used in various bill analyses.

Jon,

Brady mandates the State turn over to the defense mitigating evidence--that is a long way from mandating it turn over "any evidence that is relevant to the defendant's case." So it's not Brady.

The whole rationale behind this massive change in Discovery is based on this US Supreme Court case, and I want to read it.

It's just been signed.