Judge orders Port Arthur Police to provide discovery to DA in Denisha Buckner case, quashes defense subpoenas

The presiding judge in the 252nd District Court on Tuesday resolved defense subpoenas seeking records and evidence from the Port Arthur Police Department in the death investigation of Denisha Buckner, ordering the agency to provide any collected materials to the district attorney for disclosure to defense counsel.

At a hearing that the court described as limited to subpoenas directed at Port Arthur police records, defense attorney James Adams (identified on the record as “Mister Adams”) said his team was missing several pieces of discovery — specifically footage from neighborhood “Ring” cameras near the scene, cell‑phone extraction data, fingerprint and DNA analyses and images or interviews the detective had collected. Adams told the court he was seeking, among other things, “other ring cameras that are in the area, any other videos that were collected … from the apartment complex.”

State prosecutor Mister Nichols and attorney Mister Stelley (representing the Port Arthur Police Department) told the court that most material had been provided in ordinary discovery and that additional items were being added as investigators completed interviews and lab work. Detective Cousins’s file, the state said, had been copied to a thumb drive and turned over.

The judge framed the dispute around Texas discovery law and the Michael Morton Act: rather than allowing defense subpoenas to be served directly on the agency in this case, the court explained it would follow the statutory discovery procedure and have the agency deliver any collected materials to the district attorney, who must then produce discoverable items to the defense. The judge said: “If they got it, turn it over. Let the defense look at it.”

The court specifically ordered Port Arthur police, through counsel, to confirm whether additional recordings, audio, video, ring camera footage, any cell‑phone analysis, and any gunshot‑residue or DNA results exist; if they do, the court ordered those materials turned over to the district attorney for immediate production to defense counsel. The judge clarified that if an item did not exist, the agency could so state, but the court would not permit unilateral agency determination that “it doesn’t have anything on it” as a reason to withhold materials: “If they got it, turn it over. Let the defense look at it.”

The judge also directed counsel to coordinate on outstanding material: where forensic testing (DNA, GSR, fingerprint analysis or phone dumps) was pending, the court asked the agency and prosecutors to inform defense counsel of the status and to produce results when they arrived. The judge advised defense counsel that, if they wished to perform independent analysis of a device (for example, the deceased’s phone) they should file a focused motion seeking an order specifying custody, chain of custody and the scope of any independent examination; the court said it would consider such requests once properly filed.

The court granted the motion to quash the direct subpoenas but simultaneously ordered the Port Arthur Police Department to provide any collected materials to the district attorney for production under the Michael Morton Act and related discovery obligations. The judge instructed the parties that if any items had not been produced after compliance, defense counsel should return to court with a motion to compel.

The hearing clarified several categories of expected material: the court directed production or status updates for (1) police reports and calls for service relating to the deceased and a named witness (Shaunsie/“Shansey” Nelson); (2) any additional neighborhood or apartment‑complex camera footage collected; (3) documentation of cell‑phone extraction and analysis for devices of interest; (4) gunshot‑residue and DNA analysis results (the court noted some GSR from the vehicle had been produced and ordered verification about any GSR or DNA testing of victim or other persons); and (5) any fingerprint analyses performed on items recovered in subsequent search warrants.

The judge closed the hearing by directing the agency and prosecutors to cooperate in identifying and producing any such items through the DA’s office so the defense can review them promptly, and the court reiterated that the Michael Morton Act requires affirmative disclosures by the prosecution.