KP-0041
Texas Attorney General Opinion
Brady v. Maryland and its progeny do not impose a general duty upon a prosecutor to listen to all recordings of inmate telephone calls held by the county telecommunications provider to search for exculpatory evidence for a defendant if the prosecutor would not do so otherwise.|Brady v. Maryland imposes a duty to discover whether the investigators and employees who listen to recorded inmate telephone calls find evidence favorable to a defendant in the recordings and, if so, to disclose that evidence to the defendant.|Brady v. Maryland imposes a duty upon the prosecutor to discover whether the investigators and employees who listen to recorded inmate telephone calls find evidence favorable to a defendant in the recordings and, if so, to disclose that evidence to the defendant.|A contract that provides a criminal district attorney's office with unfettered access to inmate telephone call recordings would likely be considered by a court as evidence in support of the criminal district attorney's office having possession, custody, or control of the recordings.|A contract that provides a criminal district attorney's office with unfettered access to inmate telephone call recordings would likely be considered by a court as evidence in support of the criminal district attorney's office having possession, custody, or control of inmate telephone call recordings.
Sourced from Texas Attorney General.
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.