Skip to main content

Pope v. State

Citations

  • 207 S.W.3d 352
  • 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2235
  • 2006 WL 3302823

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a party may always comment on the fact that an opponent failed to call an available witness, or argue a witness was not called because testimony would be unfavorable
  • holding testimony that defense expert had not requested additional DNA testing did not violate the work product doctrine
  • discussing when an expert is a \testifying\ expert rather than a \consulting\ expert and holding that the parties to a criminal proceeding may seek information about the opposing side's testifying experts and their opinions
  • discussing when an expert is a “testifying” expert rather than a “consulting” expert and holding that the parties to a criminal proceeding may seek information about the opposing side’s testifying experts and their opinions
  • noting “party may always comment on the fact that the opponent failed to call an available witness and then argue ‘Don’t you know, if Mr. X had anything favorable to say, my opponent would have called him.’”
  • “a party may always comment on the fact that the opponent failed to call an available witness”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cochran, Keller, Meyers, Price, Womack, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

57 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.