CAUSE NO. 123456

STATE OF TEXAS	}{	IN THE DISTRICT COURT

v.	}{	HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

JOHN DOE	}{	183rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING
FOR INDEPENDENT FORENSIC ANALYSIS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW JOHN DOE, Defendant in the above-styled and numbered cause, and moves the Court to pre-approve the additional funds for the payment of an independent forensic analysis of the alleged narcotics with which he is accused of possessing, and in support thereof would show the following:
	I.
Defendant is charged by indictment with the felony offenses of Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance [methamphetamine], weighing more than 4 grams but less than 200 grams, Possession/Transport of Precursor Chemicals and Possession w/ Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance [methamphetamine] weighing over 400 grams.   On May 1, 2003, this Court pre-approved funding in the amount of $750.00 for Defendant to secure an independent analysis of the alleged controlled substances.
II.
After a diligent search, counsel has recently located a laboratory that is qualified to perform an independent chemical analysis of an alleged controlled substance, and is willing to do so on a court-appointed criminal case.  However, the estimated costs of performing the analysis exceeds $750.00.
Dr. Ernest Lykissa and Mr. Emile Roques of Expertox Laboratories have advised Defendant’s counsel that they anticipate a minimum cost of $1,500.00 for testing and a minimum of $1,800.00 for in-court testimony, if necessary.  These “lowball” figures are subject to increase, depending on the amount of time and energy expended in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles sometimes imposed by recalcitrant law-enforcement-connected laboratories to obtain the controlled substances, and the amount of time required for court appearances. 
III.
Defendant is indigent and lacks the funds to secure such an independent expert by his own means.  See Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985); McBride v. State, 838 S.W.2d 248 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Art. 26.05, V.A.C.C.P.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays this Court will pre-approve the additional funding necessary to procure an independent forensic analysis in preparation of his defense.
	Respectfully submitted,

	______________________________
	ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

	

Presented ex parte to the Court on this the ___ day of August, 2003.

CAUSE NO. 123456

v.	}{		HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

JOHN DOE	}{		183rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

	O R D E R

On this the _____ day of __________________, 2003, came on to be heard Defendant's Motion for Approval of Additional Funding for Independent Forensic Analysis, and having duly considered same, this Court is of the opinion said Motion should be:
	_______ GRANTED
	_______ DENIED

The Court finds the Defendant has made a threshold showing that an independent chemical analysis is an essential tool in the presentation of a defense against the indictment returned and the penalty sought.  IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the amount of $___________ be allocated and approved for initial payment for such expert assistance.  It is further ORDERED that the record of this hearing and all pleadings associated with that proceeding will be placed under seal under ORDER of this Court, to wit: 
 
This Order, and the Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion for Funding, shall be sealed in the record and placed in an envelope in the record and shall be seen by and distributed to defense counsel and this Court only.  

SIGNED and ENTERED this _____ day of _________________, 2003.

		______________________________
		JUDGE PRESIDING