First question: Anyone ever had to deal with or heard of Kay Michlitz? She's a forensic document examiner from San Antonio and has been retained by the defense in a forgery case I'm handling. Secondly, I spoke with someone at DPS forensic laboratory in Austin, and I was told that her expert opinion wouldn't be admissable because she doesn't satisfy Art. 38.35(d)(1) because she's not likely accredited by "the director" under Sec. 411.0205, Gov't Code. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Check this thread for additional information.

Get ready for a fight though. I have had this very same issue with the same judge on two separate trials and each time he let the "expert" testify citing that he thought "the law was unconstitutional" because a State Agency was the only accreditation body available. I guess he doesn't feel that way about his bar card. Thank god I did not have to cross appeal because both cases ended in convictions. There are a lot of these so-called "experts" floating around. I googled the "expert" from the first trial and found him on a party favors page between Tina the Contortionist and Garbonzo the clown. Talk about a fun cross. The DPS website publishes a page with the names of those accredited.

If the evidence of non-accreditation is uncontested, perhaps you should have a writ of prohibition ready to file at the court of appeals mid-trial, requesting an order requiring the trial judge to follow the law.

Interesting that the National Academy of Science report, criticizing the use of experts that are not appropriately accredited, seems only to apply to experts who could express an opinion of guilt. If that report were applied to forensic psychiatry, for example, how many defense experts (who don't receive from the defense all the relevant statements and investigative reports, interview the defendand or prepare a written, detailed report) would be deemed unqualified?