In complying with Brady-Bagley and our standard 39.14 discovery order, I take the position that the only part of the criminal history of a witness to which the defendant is entitled is that which can be used under Rule 609 (i.e. felony or moral turpitude conviction), unless there is a separate leniency or similar agreement involved. Does Brady also involve "vulnerable relationship" evidence? See Carroll, 916 S.W.2d 494. The Amarillo court holds that the apparent disinterest of a witness is subject to impeachment under this theory because he supposedly had an interest in preserving his unadjudicated status with respect to a prior criminal offense although the State had never even discussed the matter with him and there was no evidence his status was threatened in any way. Jones, No. 07-01-0393-CR (8/9/02) While that case dealt with admissibility of the evidence under Davis v. Alaska, if it is admissible as a form of impeachment an issue seems to be raised under Bagley too. Is the only safe approach to include info about any open cases as part of the disclosure made to the defendant? Does everyone agree that a witness might be prone to lie for the State just because he is under community supervision?

The most reliable method of meeting Brady requirements is to disclose anything that could conceivably be used for impeachment and file a motion in limine for those things you think should be excluded. My standard is this:

Would I feel comfortable 10 years from now explaining my reasoning for exclusion to a federal judge?

Incidentally, this only applies if you are going to trial. The recent US Supreme Court case of United States v. Ruiz held that Brady impeachment disclosure was not required if the defendant pled guilty. The due process clause demands disclosure to guarantee a fair trial, not a fair guilty plea.