If a judge appoints an expert after an ex parte hearing can the judge order everyone involved such as jailers, etc that they cannot tell the State that the defendant has seen a DR - also is there any way that the state can at least find out the name of the DR before there is a ruling on the 39.14 motion to disclose

Why would you want to tempt fate, or the Judge's attitude? File your 39.14 and get your names.

Ex parte hearing request filed on 5/30, no concrete knowledge before this that defense was asking for expert. The 39.14 motion for disclosure has been filed, but the judge has not ruled on this and the trial starts on the 12th. We have a firm belief that defendant has lied to DR and want to be able to impeach DR's conclusions because not based on the truth, but we need to know in order to subpoena witnesses. Trying to find a way to prepare without asking for continuance. We know that the judge should not allow expert to testify after we have asked for disclosure and have yet received names.

But the real question is whether the judge can order the jailers or anyone else from revealing to the State that the defendant has even seen a DR. And why, since the name of the DR is not part of a defensive theory, can't the State at least have the name of the DR even after an ex parte hearing.

Williams, 958 S.W.2d at 191-2 certainly says the defendant is entitled to make his request ex parte and presumably most courts then "seal" the order of appointment, but it would not seem to me that mere disclosure of the identity of the expert reveals the contents of the motion or the defendant's defensive theories or theories of weaknesses in the state's case. That said, I suppose the ex parte order may say whatever the judge deems necessary to protect the defendant's stated interest. But, if the information is subject to disclosure under art. 39.14, why would the court seek to keep it a secret? In other words, apparently the drafters of the statute determined that requiring disclosure of the name and address of the expert did not impinge on the defendant's right under Ake.