In re City of Lubbock (original by judge newell)
Annotate this CaseThe Lubbock County Criminal District Attorney charged the Real Party in Interest, Rodolfo Zambrano, with the sexual assault of a child. The Real Party in Interest filed a pre-trial “Ex Parte Motion for Court Ordered Production of Documents and/or Things,” seeking a court order for the production of documents held by the Lubbock Police Department. The motion, filed under seal, referred to itself as “an ex parte motion for third party discovery,” and requested that the trial court order the Lubbock Police Department to “provide all records” regarding J.G., a child, “including but not limited to: records where she was reported to be a child victim of sexual abuse” to counsel for the Real Party in Interest. The motion further requested that the trial court order the Lubbock Police Department to “maintain the confidentiality of this request and not reveal it to the State.” In support of the motion, the Real Party in Interest alleged that the requested items were relevant and material to his defense without providing any factual support for his claims. Respondent, Presiding Judge of the 140th District Court, granted the motion and ordered the Lubbock Police Department to provide the requested records to the Real Party in Interest and not disclose the order to the Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office. Relator, the City of Lubbock, filed a response to the ex parte order along with a motion to stay the order. Relator argued that the request exceeded the narrow scope of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) and Williams v. Texas, 958 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), which were limited to requests for the funding of experts for indigent defendants. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court did not have the authority to hold an ex parte hearing and enter an ex parte order compelling the police department to produce documents without notice to the prosecutor. The Court therefore conditionally granted the City's petition for mandamus relief.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.