Judge: subpoena duces tecum was improper; orders probation records routed through prosecutor in Juan Sanchez case

A Jefferson County judge told attorneys on June 20 that a subpoena duces tecum was not the proper procedure to obtain a defendant’s probation file and ordered the parties to use discovery channels instead, directing probation staff to provide responsive records to the prosecutor for upload to the court portal.

The judge opened the hearing in cause number 1830854 by saying, “I don't believe the subpoena deuces tecum was the proper way to try to get the information,” and explained that a subpoena duces tecum ordinarily “is an order to get somebody to bring something to a set hearing.” The judge advised defense counsel to request records through the district attorney’s office and have Mr. Nichols receive and upload them to the portal so everyone would have the same electronic copy.

Why it matters: defense counsel argued the probation records are relevant to mitigation if the court is considering revocation; the judge agreed that many items (lab results, payments, attendance records) “are probably discoverable,” but emphasized the correct procedural path for obtaining them. The court warned that aggressive or direct subpoenas to probation offices risked being improper and urged cooperation: “Sometimes you get more with honey,” the judge said.

Details of the hearing: defense counsel noted a formal discovery request under art. 39.14 had been filed earlier but said the probation information had not been produced. Probation’s representative clarified the office’s chronological records include entries such as telephone calls, appointments, office visits, drug tests, jail release logs, offender verification and interlock reports; the probation representative asked for clarification that certain items (offense report from DPS and out-of-county office reports) were not listed on the subpoena but could be released if properly requested.

Court direction and next steps: the judge directed probation staff to give what they have to Mr. Nichols, who will put the materials into the court’s discovery portal. The judge instructed defense counsel to notify Mr. Nichols if they believed any requested materials were missing; if production is refused, the defense may request a hearing. The court tentatively set an announcement/status hearing in a few weeks to check progress.

Context and limits: the judge repeatedly distinguished between “discussion only” about what is discoverable and formal action. The court did not order wholesale release of probation work product; instead the judge said that notes that are truly attorney work product might be different, though she indicated many probation employee chronos are discoverable. The judge also observed that if an item is legitimately withheld, counsel may seek a motion to compel at a future hearing.

Ending: The court emphasized a cooperative process: get records to Mr. Nichols, he uploads them to the portal, and if anything remains missing the defense may ask for a hearing. The case will be reset for a short announcement once the portal production is complete.