I seem to remember a decision from the Court of Criminal Appeals recently regarding due diligence. I think it held that section 24 of 42.12 CCP limited the due diligence defense only to revocations on grounds of failing to report or remain in specified place, and eliminated it as a defense as to any other ground. I found only the Dallas Court of Appeals opinion on this matter in Nurridin v. State. Is this the only opinion on this issue so far?

That's pretty much it. For a discussion, see this link.

The issue will likely be discussed in Pena, No. 04-1639, in which the CCA granted review last week.

I predict the opinion is written by Presiding Judge Keller, a long-time dissenter to the whole "due diligence defense." Perhaps she will simply write: I TOLD YOU SO!

P.S. I have no special inside knowledge. It's just fun to guess these things.

I stumbled across a CCA case today, Marx v State, concerning a six year old child witness (not the victim) testifying via closed circuit TV in a sex assualt of a child case. The thirteen year-old victim also used CCTV. The CCA affirmed and the Supremes denied cert. Thomas joined Scalia in a rare dissent from denial of cert. Scalia lamented the tacit expansion of Maryland v Craig, from which he had dissented as well, joined then by Brennan, Marshall and Stevens. He expressed exasperation with the way the majority in the affirmance of Craig and the denial of cert in Marx ignored the plain language of the confrontation clause. The seeds of Crawford were there all along had we but eyes to see.