asking the Court of Criminal Appeals to step in<\/a>. The DA\u2019s filing argues that Armstrong failed to meet the legal burden required to justify a hearing, and that the Court of Appeals overstepped its authority by ordering one anyway. The petition states that the court\u2019s ruling effectively allows Armstrong to \u201cfish for facts\u201d that were never supported in his motion for a new trial.<\/p>\n\u201cThe order issued by the Court of Appeals allows Armstrong to fish for facts and evidence to support his otherwise unsupported claims in contradiction to this Court\u2019s precedent,\u201d the filing reads.<\/p>\n
The state\u2019s argument centers on a misconduct complaint involving forensic expert Celestina Rossi. The defense says prosecutors should have disclosed a complaint filed with the Texas Forensic Science Commission that accused Rossi of planting DNA in an unrelated murder case. The complaint was later dismissed. The DA\u2019s office says the material was publicly available long before Armstrong\u2019s 2023 trial, meaning it was not suppressed and does not qualify as a Brady violation. Prosecutors also argue that the defense failed to show the complaint would have been admissible or relevant.<\/p>\n
\u201cNothing in Armstrong\u2019s filings or the record before the trial court showed that the State suppressed information that Dr. [Robert] Collins filed a complaint against Officer Rossi or that the TFSC dismissed the complaint,\u201d the filing reads. \u201cThe complaint, dismissal of the complaint, minutes of the meeting discussing the complaint, and a video-recording of the hearing with Dr. Collins were all publicly available since 2019; meaning, had counsel used reasonable diligence he could have obtained them before the 2023 trial.\u201d<\/p>\n
Attorney Nathan Beedle, a former Deputy Chief of Criminal Courts at the DA\u2019s Office who is not involved in this case, explained the unusual nature of the filing. <\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re asking for the highest court in the state of Texas to tell the Court of Appeals that they made a mistake and stop the hearing,\u201d Beedle said. <\/p>\n
He added that while the state occasionally seeks review of appellate decisions, it happens in only a small percentage of cases and is especially rare when the goal is to block a trial-level evidentiary hearing.<\/p>\n
Armstrong\u2019s appellate team has argued that the complaint about Rossi\u2019s conduct should have been disclosed because it speaks directly to her credibility. Rossi\u2019s blood-spatter testimony at trial was used to connect Armstrong to the crime scene. Defense attorneys maintain that knowing about the complaint could have changed how they prepared for her testimony.<\/p>\n
During an October hearing, Armstrong\u2019s lawyers told the appeals court that even if the allegations against Rossi were unproven, the information should have been turned over. Prosecutors countered that the complaint had nothing to do with the Armstrong case, was dismissed as unfounded, and would not have been admissible to challenge Rossi\u2019s credibility.<\/p>\n
The Court of Criminal Appeals has not said when it will issue a ruling. If the court grants the DA\u2019s request, the appellate court\u2019s order for a January hearing will be withdrawn. If the request is denied, the hearing will move forward, and the trial court will gather new evidence before sending the record back to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n
Nearly ten years after the killings, the Armstrong case continues to move through unexpected turns. With the DA\u2019s latest filing, the final outcome is far from certain and the state\u2019s highest criminal court will now determine the next chapter.<\/p>\n
Copyright 2025 by KPRC Click2Houston – All rights reserved.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"HOUSTON \u2013 The Harris County District Attorney\u2019s Office is asking the state\u2019s highest criminal court to intervene in…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":83739,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[40356,40357,40358,17250,27,29,28],"class_list":["post-83738","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-texas","tag-aj-armstrong","tag-antonio-armstrong","tag-court-of-appeals-decision","tag-harris-county-district-attorneys-office","tag-texas","tag-texas-headlines","tag-texas-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83738","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83738"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83738\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/83739"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}