Summary
Forensic Science Commission, in its reasonable discretion, may refrain from granting an exemption from accreditation under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.01, subpart (4-d)(c), a court would likely conclude|Admissibility of forensic analysis of physical evidence, Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.35(d)(1) prevails over Texas Rule of Evidence 702 to extent of conflict|Forensic Science Commission - Admissibility of forensic analysis of physical evidence, Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.35(d)(1) prevails over Texas Rule of Evidence 702 to extent of conflict|"Forensic analysis" from a crime laboratory that is neither accredited by the Forensic Science Commission nor exempt from accreditation by statute or administrative rule is inadmissible in a criminal action in a Texas court under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.35(d)(1), a court would likely conclude that|Forensic Science Commission - "Forensic analysis" from a crime laboratory that is neither accredited by the Forensic Science Commission nor exempt from accreditation by statute or administrative rule is inadmissible in a criminal action in a Texas court under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.35(d)(1), a court would likely conclude that|Crime laboratory must report professional negligence or professional misconduct pertaining to forensic analysis in all disciplines - not just those that are accredited - to the Forensic Science Commission pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.01, subpart 4(a)(2), a court would likely conclude|Forensic Science Commission - Crime laboratory must report professional negligence or professional misconduct pertaining to forensic analysis in all disciplines - not just those that are accredited - to the Forensic Science Commission pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.01, subpart 4(a)(2), a court would likely conclude
Opinion File
Opinion File
  • kp0127.pdf