Bexar County Criminal Defense
Article 39.14 and the discovery you are owed
The Issue Spotter drafts the demand to the State for what a defense file actually needs, grounded in what the Evidence Orchestrator already found in the tape, with metadata on the record where it matters.
The Michael Morton Act put teeth in Texas discovery
Texas discovery is its own animal. Article 39.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rewritten by the Michael Morton Act, requires the State to produce the materials in its possession that bear on the case, and it did so because a man spent nearly twenty-five years in prison for a murder he did not commit while exculpatory evidence sat undisclosed. That history is the reason the statute reads the way it does, and it is the reason a defense file is entitled to more than the State’s summary of its own case.
The Issue Spotter drafts the Article 39.14 demand with that entitlement spelled out. The offense reports, the witness statements, the body-cam and dash-cam footage, the 911 audio, the lab results, and anything in the State’s possession bearing on guilt, punishment, or the credibility of its witnesses. The demand goes out specific, timely, and on the record, which is how a discovery right becomes a discovery fact.
The demand asks for what this case calls for
A generic discovery checklist asks for everything and therefore for nothing in particular. The Issue Spotter drafts from the matter and from what the Evidence Orchestrator already found in the recordings, so the demand asks for what this case actually needs. When the body-cam read shows a referenced report that never appeared in the file, the demand names that report. When the footage points to a second officer whose camera was never produced, the demand asks for that camera.
This is the discovery side of reading the footage rather than the footnote. Because the Evidence Orchestrator read the raw recordings and indexed what is on them, the demand can point at the specific gap between what the tape implies exists and what the State actually turned over. A demand grounded in the record is harder to wave off than a form letter, because it asks for a named thing the case shows should exist.
The metadata posture: ask for the file, not a screenshot of it
Modern evidence carries data about itself, and that data is part of the discovery. A body-cam clip has timestamps the device encoded, a creation time, a chain of custody. A photograph carries the conditions it was shot under. The Issue Spotter’s demand takes the posture that the defense is owed the original files and their metadata, not a re-exported copy with the underlying data stripped, because the metadata is often where the timeline lives or fails.
This connects straight to how the Evidence Orchestrator works. It aligns the cameras on the wall clock by reading the device clock the files carry, and when a clock drifted or was never set it flags the sync as low-confidence rather than papering over it. A demand for the original files with metadata intact is what lets that reading hold up: you asked for the source, on the record, so the timeline you build from it rests on the evidence as the State actually recorded it.
Discovery as the access-to-justice question
Article 39.14 is where the Sixth Amendment promise meets the calendar. The right to the State’s evidence means little if the appointed defender never has the hours to demand it specifically and chase what does not arrive. The Issue Spotter drafts the demand from the matter so the request goes out early and complete, and the matter on the Case Board tracks what was asked for against what came back.
Gideon promised a real lawyer for the person who could not buy one. A real lawyer demands the discovery the law owes the defense, by name, on the record, and notices when it is missing. The Issue Spotter puts that demand within reach of the solo and appointed defender, drafted from what the record shows, for the attorney to review and send.
The whole machine
Ten logins down to two
One subscription stands in for the stack a defense firm usually stitches together, so the practice runs on two things it already trusts: Google Workspace, where the files and matters live, and The IMC Machine, where the matter runs. LawPay and QuickBooks, the money rail, stay where they are, fed by the Machine. Casework, evidence, motions, vouchers, marketing, and events, in one place.
San Antonio and Bexar County. The Machine is built for here first. For another city, county, or region, the build-out is custom and carries its own setup fee.
