Motion for discovery before a certification hearing. Do they have a right to discovery, and if so, what can be included. I have found three cases that,in dicta, gives some indication there is a right to discovery - Stubblefield v. State, 659 SW2d 496; In the matter of CWC, 920 SW2d 387; and Hidalgo v. State, 983 SW2d 746. Hidalgo relies heavily on Kent v. US, 383 541 and In re Gault, 387 US 1. All of these cases imply a right to discovery, but it seems more on social and psychological tests, etc. Do we need to give more? See US v. DR, 225 F. Supp 694, 698 indicating that transfer proceeding district courts assume the truth of the offense so offense specific discovery may not be necessary. But these all seem to ignore the statutory provision 54.02(e) which only requires one day notice.

[This message was edited by pkdyer on 09-29-05 at .]

51.17(b)says discovery is governed by the criminal standard. So you should look only at 54.02(e) and chapter 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial in CWC took place before 51.17(b) went into effect.

Looking at it as examining trial, as Alexander, No. 05-97-02022-CR (Apr. 20, 1999) and KBH, 913 SW2d 684 (1995) implies, looks like discovery would be the same as examining trial - 39.01. So I guess I am still confused whether 39.14 applies to a cert. hearing. It is not a trial, and many cases state a cert. hearing is more akin to a probable cause/examining trial hearing. I didn't find any cases that authorizes discovery before an examining trial - the cases seem to say is that the examining trial is a tool of discovery.

CWC dissent seems to imply discovery is proper any time juv atty requests, 54.02(e) one day statement does not prevent it.

I don't know your exact situation, but you mention the psychological/psychiatric reports. I have always argued that since the juvenile court is required by statute (see Sec. 54.04(d)) to "order and obtain a complete diagnostic study, social evaluation, and full investigation of the child, his circumstances, and the circumstances of the alleged offense" anything that is part of that court ordered report under one of those topics is NOT THE STATE'S REPORT, BUT IS THE COURT'S REPORT. Therefore, it is not subject to the various objections that the defense could make to state's evidence. In other words, it doesn't belong to the state, nor does the state necessarily sponsor it (remember, we get all kinds of stuff in those reports and not all of it is necessarily good for the state), but rather it belongs to the court and the court makes it available to the attorney as the court sees fit. The statute requires (in 54.04(e)) that it be made available at least one day prior to the hearing. As I see it, one of the mistakes that attorneys make is that if they don't like the report they want to attack it as though it comes from the state. It doesn't - it comes from the court. When the court orders the report and the evaluations, they are stuck with whatever it says - like it or not - just like the state is.