Fr a_ FILE 6G D ~2aZ.EL CAUSENO.1997.6103 Opp AT 18 ang " a 1997-C.104 colts OHsoy ORC Yc ‘THE STATE OF TEXAS S INTHE DMiCT CO sounar vs, 5 PANOLA COUNTY, TEXAS [BERNHARDT TIEDE, 11 § 123" JUDICIAL District , 7 NS Ni TION TO. ORS >ROCEDURE ART. 394 ‘TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: ‘COMES NOW the Stat of Texas, by and through her Ceiminal Dist Atomey io Tem, isa Tanner, and provides the Court wit this response to the Defendant's application to depose witnesses ann supper thereof, would show the Court the folowing L ‘Te Defendant stands charged by indictment in Cause No, 1957-C-104 with ist degree felony the. The Defendant stands convicted of murder in Cause No, 197-C-103. Said ease was ‘emanded by the Cour of Criminal Appeals to ths Honorable Court for new trial on punishment Both cases are efron Senury 11,2016. 0 ‘The State was previously represented by the Panola County Criminal District Atomey, Dungy Buck Davidson. On March 30, 2015, this Cour granted Davidson's motion 1orecose imslf and for the appointment of a Ctininal District Atorney Pro Tem, Thereaf, the undersigned was appointed to represent he Sate in ll matters petsining othe above etd and sumbered ee ‘The Defendant has ened his mation as being “unopposed” To efi, sid tion was filed on March 26,2015, while te Criminal isriet Atomey sil represented the State, However,eno longer does, While Mr. Davidson may have bess unopposed to the motion te depos, the undesigned asthe curt epesenttve forthe State does oppose sid mation. uw ‘The Defendant bs filed an Applicaton requesting to take the depositions of the son and four grandchildren ofthe vem of the murder ease. He ha lo applied to similarly depose four lawyers ~ two who were his al counsel, one who represents the victim's so, and ne who represented the victim's esta [Article 39.02 ofthe Texas Code of Criminal Procedure permits ihe party t0 tke the ‘eposion of material witnesses upon a showing tha theresa “good reson forte depoiion. ‘Ail courts wide discretion in either granting or denying an sppliction to take deposition and ‘denial of deposition i sujet oan abuse of discretion nda. Cooks Sate, 844S.W.24 687 (ex. Crim. App. 1992): Morrow Sate, 139 .W.54 796 (Tex. AppTexaians 204). wv. ‘he undersigned has been personally informed bythe former prosecutor, Danoy Buck Davidson, that Mr. Davidson was the one who suggested thatthe Defendant seek to depose the "ised witnesses, neon multiple merabers ofthe family of his murder victim, Infact, Mr. Davidson specially informed th undersigned that he told Ji ht he ought ‘oak tee the Nugens) deposions” He went onto ell he undersigned that they were giving ie hell and I decided fo give them hell ight back" In a separate conversation, couse! fo the Defendant, Jodi Coe confirmed his fact. Quite simply, it should go without saying that Anse 39.02 was not enacted in cider fo give ‘party means ogvea witness hell" Indeed, sch motive for deposing a witness can ony be ‘considered harassment and serves no legitimate purpose. saccades ‘ep insg unos nousv. ‘Aiionally, the reasons that the Defendant articulates in his motion are likewise mt a ‘ppropiate bass for depositions and donot conte good eause. fa is marion, and tox pester ‘exten, ia his motion to dismiss the theft case on spony tal grounds, the Defendant lege that there may have been some sat of "Scheme" peioe oth Defendan's rg al hat invlved ‘ome sort of ple negations tht may have been “sert"tosome people. Evenfthesllegaons Were uve, which the State doesnot concede, the moment thatthe Sate andthe Defendant smounced “Ready” for trial in 1999 and thereafter went orl, any andl! sues involved nplen nepions ere or oerwise, became completly moot, If they were moot in 1999, they ate sill moot in 2015 and 2016. This is parculaty so considering that evidence of pea nezuions ‘enol admissible as evidence. Tex. R vid 4100). ‘Th Defendant also makes allegations about sme sort of nefarious intent andr acties tucng the probate of Marjorie Nugent's wil. That, 00, is uel nelevant othe issues tha ace ‘fore his Cour, The Defend is convicted of murdering Marjorie Nuget. How her wil was ‘robated after her dest has no bearing onthe Defendant’ culpability fr her murder and the sppopriste punishment for tha crime. Moreover the Defendant is charged wih sealing a Significant wnount of money from Marois Nugen's eae ater he murdered her and before hes body was discovered. What happened to Mex. Nagen’s estate ater her body was discovered and ‘he Defendant was convicted of murder has no Bearing on hi ef from that estate yrs eae, -Assuch, none ofthe dings the Defendant articulates reasons for deposing the listed individuals fe tothe good cause necessary for his Cour to Onder the depositions vt ‘The Defendart’s application to depose his former trial attorneys, Scrappy Holmes and Eric sorta weersive ‘veo eunctiunazeouny