I thought I saw a case on this recently, but can't seem to find it now. Just wondering what circumstances would allow a court to force a prosecutor to testify? My scenario -- bond reduction hearing -- defense atty calls prosecutor to stand to allege prosecutorial vindictiveness in filing a second offense? Wouldn't some of the reasons for filing second offense be work-product or the mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, and legal theories? Had 2nd case in 08, but new info came in recently that made case stronger, so filed case.

I think that it absolutely would delve into work product on your scenario. If it's core work product -- which is attorneys' mental impressions, conclusions, and legal theories -- then it's "sacrosanct" and they absolutely can't get to it. In re Bexar County Criminal Dist. Attorney's Office, 224 S.W.3d 182, 186 (Tex. 2007). If it's non-core work product -- which isn't well-defined, but is pretty much "everything else" -- then they still have to show "substantial need" and that they can't obtain the evidence any other way without undue hardship.

I would file a motion to quash. They have the initial burden to show that the testimony would be material and favorable. Most of them can't even get past that threshold. Plus they'll have to overcome the work product objections. We've generally had good luck getting those things quashed. But it's a big pain in the neck. Have fun!

Unfortunately it was sprung on the prosecutor at the hearing and even though he objected to testifying the court already made him. Just wanted to have info in the bank in case it happens again. Thanks. I will keep the Bexar County case for future reference.