Hunter v. United States - Supreme Court No. 24-1063 | December 4, 2025
Munson P. Hunter, III, signed a plea agreement containing boilerplate language generally waiving his right to appeal his sentence. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Mr. Hunter’s appeal based solely on that waiver and its restrictive precedents recognizing only two exceptions where a defendant who signs such a waiver may appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Mr. Hunter’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the Fifth Circuit’s two-exception rule to appeal waivers. TCDLA filed an Amicus brief in support of Mr. Hunter, which discussed a defendant’s inability to predict and waive unforeseen errors.  TCDLA’s brief also spoke to the judge’s inherent authority to grant a defendant the right to appeal if the judge suspects the defendant’s rights were somehow violated.

Paxton Amicus Brief | July 17, 2025
Several District Attorneys' Offices throughout Texas have challenged Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to force their offices to report extensive criminal case files under Texas Government Code § 41.006. A Travis County District Court granted an injunction in favor of the DA’s offices and the AG filed an interlocutory appeal to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. TCDLA’s Amicus Committee was asked to support briefing filed by a collection of Texas criminal defense attorneys under the Amicus name Criminal Defense Attorneys against Unconstitutional Recentralization of Texas Government. TCDLA filed an Amicus brief adopting the UCDA’s extensive argument on the historical origin of Texas Government Code § 41.006.

Nixon Amicus Brief | February 27, 2025
This is no place for a jury trial for reasons evident to members of this bar. The people housed inside are prejudged to have committed crimes. The presumption of innocence can be nothing more than a platitude when the State tries a person in the same place the State incarcerates a person. But, the Court of Criminal Appeals says this place is not necessarily a jail and that jurors were probably none the wiser: "Indeed, we are persuaded that average jurors may have more likely understood that the government and the courts use whatever facilities they have available to get their work done, and that the facility where a trial is held ordinarily does not reflect inherently on the guilt ordangerousness of an accused." TCDLA wrote to give the insight of defense lawyers who know too well what it means to be inside of a jail.

Amicus Brief No. 24-6057  
Luis Alfredo Aparicio was detained and arrested as part of Operation Lone Star (OLS)—Governor Abbott’s multibillion dollar initiative to address illegal immigration. In the trial court, Mr. Aparicio argued that his arrest violated the Equal Protection Clause because OLS’s policy excluded women from being prosecuted. Thus, the government discriminated against him because he was a male. The Fourth Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Aparicio that OLS’s policies violated the Equal Protection Clause, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that decision. Mr. Aparicio filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging the CCA’s decision, and TCDLA filed an amicus brief in support of that petition.

Montgomery Amicus | December 11, 2024
Physical presence of the defendant and those who accuse are indispensable components to the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Beecher Montgomery was sentenced to 20 years' incarceration at the end of a hearing conducted in his absence. He sat in a jail cell watching witnesses accuse him of wrongdoing from the comfort of live video streams inside their homes or offices. He was unable to assist his attorney in challenging the accusations against him. The solemnity of the proceeding was underscored by the nature of the thing itself--Zoom--a platform for meetings where pants are optional.

Villarreal Update | November 15, 2024
This case raises the issue of whether a trial court may exercise its dismissal authority as a remedy for an Article 39.14 discovery violation. Doug Gladden and Jason Niehaus wrote exhaustively on the history of Texas's Due Course of Law provision and how it provides protections beyond what can be claimed under the federal constitution. It is a fantastic tool to put in the tool bag of our CCA judges who think highly of trial court authority but who are without a familiar framework for explaining where it derives.

Steel Amicus | October 22, 2024 - WIN!

In re Taylor Brock Peters | October 4, 2024 - WIN!

Heath Amicus Brief | August 29, 2024
In June, the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the State Prosecuting Attorney's (SPA) arguments that the police are not the "state" as defined by Article 39.14. The Court rejected the SPA's contention that prosecutors should not be held accountable for producing information not contained in the prosecutor's file (as did the United States Supreme Court 30 years ago in Kyles v. Whitley). Now, in a motion for rehearing, the SPA urges the Court to adopt a standard standard whereby a trial court's ability to exclude late-disclosed evidence is restricted to prosecutorial bad faith. TCDLA filed its amicus supporting the Court's decision and rebutting the alarm raised by the SPA and several district attorneys arguing as amici and suggesting that the criminal justice system will devolve into lawlessness and disorder.

Strickland v. State | May 15, 2024
This case centers on stare decisis and whether this Court should overturn a century of accepted principles concerning cumulation orders. But overturning precedent requires “special justification” or “strong grounds.”  


In re Brock Peters | September 1, 2023
The Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on compelling statements which may be used in an ongoing criminal prosecution is unambiguous. The trial court and court of appeals erred by allowing compelled answers to interrogatories, which will result in creating links in the chain of prosecution against Relator. Here, Relator properly claimed the applicable Fifth Amendment privilege.

Ex Parte Paul David Storey II | August 28, 2023
Prible v. Lumpkin | March 8, 2023
Defendants—and their attorneys—must be able to rely on the government’s integrity. While defense counsel’s obligation to investigate the State’s case is well established, the reasonableness of those efforts depends on the information available to counsel.

Brief of Appellees | January 13, 2023  

Barton & Sanders v. State | December 2022  
From Twitter jail to Texas jail, weaponizing hurt feelings is untenable public policy. Electronic posts within the scope of harassment are plainly speech as this Court has historically defined speech. Refusing certiorari allows Texas, and any state that follow Texas’ lead, to create subdivisions of “nonspeech” by criminalizing hurt feelings.  

Ex Parte Paul David Storey I | October 19, 2022  
Procedural barriers should not prevent merits review and relief in death penalty cases brought under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 § 5(a)(1) where the State admits to prosecutorial misconduct, admits that there was an active ongoing effort to conceal that prosecutorial misconduct through the initial state habeas proceedings, and the defense, State, and district court are all in agreement that the prosecutorial misconduct is so severe that it warrants relief.

Steven James Elsik Appellant's Brief | September 6, 2022


Ex Parte Juan Diaz, Jr. | November 11, 2020


Ogg Amicus Brief | October 14, 2020


Crider v. State | June 15, 2020


Holoman v. State | July 24, 2019
Whether a prior family violence conviction can operate either as an element of the offense or a sentence enhancement, at the prosecutor’s discretion

AG Request Re Excessive Fines | April 23, 2019
The Excessive Fines Clause and relevant caselaw in Texas

Watkins v. State | February 6, 2019
Meaning of “material” in Michael Morton Act

McCraw v. C.I. – Tex. Sup. Ct. | September 21, 2018
Sex offender registration of someone who pled guilty prior to the 1991 creation of the Sex Offender Registry

Gamble v. U.S. - SCOTUS | September 4, 2018
The Separate Sovereigns Exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause

Hillman v. Nueces County, Tex. et al. – Tex. Sup. Ct. | August 22, 2018
Firing ADA for compliance with the Michael Morton Act

Hinojosa et al. v. State – Waco | May 2, 2018
When the Michael Morton Act applies and sanctions for failure to comply

Ex parte Ellis – Waco | January 2, 2018
Content-based restrictions and the First Amendment

Ramirez-Tamayo v. State – CCA | June 6, 2017
Deference afforded law enforcement officers based on their training and experience

In re Clendennen – Waco | January 31, 2017
Recusal of DA’s office

Ex parte Speckman – CCA | December 15, 2016
Motions to dismiss habeas writ applications subsequent to record development

Weems v. State - San Antonio | May 2, 2014
Mandatory blood draws

McGruder v. State - Waco | April 25, 2014
Mandatory blood draws

Forsyth v. State - Eastland | April 23, 2014
Warrantless blood searches

State v. Baker | April 4, 2014
Mandatory blood draws

In re Jones - CCA | April 1, 2014
Whether felony evading arrest violates the single-subject rule of Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution

In re Ft. Worth Star-Telegram et al. | June 6, 2014
Closing a courtroom to the general public

TCDLA and LCDLA Amicus Brief - Martin

TCDLA Quezada Amicus