Pardon me, that order must be mistaken

The language seems deceptively clear.

On this day the above numbered and entitled cause was called for pretrial hearing. The defendant, defendant's attorney and the Assistant District Attorney representing the State appeared. The Court hereby orders that the State produce and permit the inspection of, or the copying and/or photographing of the following items: 

13. All written statements made by any party or witness to the alleged offense which might in any manner be material to either the guilt or innocence of the Defendant or the punishment, subsequent to the witness testifying.

That would appear to mean that the defense is entitled to any and all written statements from a witness once that witness has given testimony under direct examination. Furthermore, it would appear that the order refers to anyone called to the stand by the prosecution.

Oh, but that would be wrong.

For, you see, that provision apparently is meant to be read:

All written statements made by any party or witness to the alleged offense which might in any manner be material to either the guilt of innocence of the Defendant or the punishment, subsequent to the witness testifying, if, and only if, the Defendant makes a specific request for the written statements of a specific witness.

I mean, we can't possibly expect the prosecutor to hand over all written statements without the defense attorney having to jump through a plethora of procedural hoops, can we? And God knows we can't have a judge that gives the impression that he is serious about a defendant being entitled to due process. How on earth is that going to play at election time?

If the court isn't going to enforce its own discovery order, who is?

Standard discovery order - 56th

Reciprocal discovery would only harm defendants

Wouldn't it be great to have a laundry list of items that the state is required to produce prior to trial?

No more drafting discovery motions to get any recorded statements made by your client or anyone else the state intends to call at trial. No more drafting discovery motions to get a listing of any prior convictions for your client. No more drafting discovery motions to obtain search warrants, affidavits and returns. No more drafting discovery motions to obtain a list of expert witnesses the state intends to call. No more drafting discovery motions to get your hands on those experts' reports.

Sounds pretty damn good, doesn't it?

That is if you don't mind giving the prosecutor any written statements you client made, any information you have about his criminal record, a list of evidence you plan to introduce at trial, the names of your expert witnesses and any written reports they may have produced.

Reciprocal discovery only sounds like a good idea to the civil attorneys who are trying to find a way to replace their income after tort reform and attorneys who are too damn lazy to do any work on a case outside of standing alongside their client as they accept the state's latest offer.

The proposed legislation makes a mockery out of the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, emasculates the presumption of innocence and lowers the state's burden of proof.

Still a bad idea -- even with a fancy name

Reciprocal discovery. It sounds so innocuous. Since the State is required to make certain documents in a criminal prosecution available to the defense, why shouldn't the defense be required to do the same in return?

Over at Grits for Breakfast, Scott Henson wrote about a proposed bill that would require reciprocal discovery in criminal cases:

Chairman Pete Gallego has a bill up requiring mutual pretrial discovery for both the prosecution and the defense, with related bills up by Reps Guillen and Dutton. If you get four lawyers in the room you're likely to get five opinions on the subject, but I'm not a lawyer and as I've listened to the debates over the years, I've warmed to the idea. There has to be some way to ensure exculpatory evidence is disclosed before trial. Just requiring open files of prosecutors might be my personal preference (many counties operate that way just fine), but having witnessed this fight go on for years, I know it will take at least minimalist defense disclosure to seal the deal politically at the Lege. Mutual discovery isn't a bad compromise given the severity of the problem.

Now Mr. Henson doesn't practice criminal defense (though he is well acquainted with some that do) so I wouldn't expect him to understand the consequences of such a requirement.

In a criminal prosecution, the attorney representing the state is attempting to prove a person committed a criminal act. That person is presumed innocent unless the state's attorney can prove otherwise. The person accused has no burden to prove anything. The state's attorney must present evidence for the finder of fact to consider in determining whether or not the state's attorney has met his burden of proof.

The "system" is set up to make it as difficult as possible to convict someone (though you would find that notion hard to believe in most courtrooms). The only person in the courtroom with a right to a fair trial is the person accused. The government has no due process rights in a criminal trial - nor should it.

Requiring the person accused to turn over evidence to the state's attorney would serve to lower the government's burden of proof. The state's attorney would know the identity of all potential defense witnesses. The state's attorney would have alibi evidence. The state's attorney would know the trial strategy of the person accused.

Many times the defense strategy is to point out holes in the state's theory of the case that could lead a jury to find reasonable doubt that the person accused committed the offense alleged. In those cases the person accused rarely puts on any evidence - the entire case is centered on the state's burden of proof. If the person accused did not produce any documents during pretrial discovery, the state's attorney would have a pretty good idea of what defense counsel's trial strategy would be.

That might seem "fair" - but we're not talking about a process in which both parties are on an equal footing. There is a reason that criminal cases in Texas are styled The State of Texas v. the accused. If we were just arguing over insurance money then the civil discovery rules are appropriate. But when we talking about the very freedom and liberty of an individual - the burden on the party seeking to restrain that freedom or liberty should be as heavy as possible.

We should never do anything to lessen that burden. That could be you on the other side of the v. one day.