Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evidence Disclosure And Pretrial Motions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge Boyd denies continuance in felony case; defense ordered to review state videos before jury selection
Summary
In the 187th District Court, Judge Stephanie Boyd denied a defense request to continue a felony jury trial and directed defense counsel to review roughly a dozen large video files the state produced; the court allowed inspection of physical evidence and heard a motion seeking disclosure about an anonymous tip.
Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court denied a defense request for a continuance in a felony case and ordered defense counsel to review state-produced video evidence before jury selection scheduled that afternoon.
The decision followed defense filings including a motion to inspect and examine physical evidence (filed May 23, 2025) and a contemporaneous request for a continuance. Defense counsel told the court that the state recently produced approximately 12 large video files — some containing unmuted portions of the defendant’s statements — that the defense said were material to preparing mitigation and trial strategy. The prosecutor identified in the record was Andrew Harrison; the defense was represented by Pauline Portillo and Payton Howe for defendant Felipe Cernadres.
The court told counsel they could inspect any evidence they sought and declined to delay the jury trial. “I am not granting a motion for continuance because you all have not inspected evidence that was always available,” Judge Boyd said from the bench. The judge offered to load the video so counsel could watch it with the defendant and directed the parties to review the materials immediately; the court kept jury selection on the calendar for 1:30 p.m.
Defense counsel also presented a motion seeking disclosure and production of any informers relied upon by the state, contending the prosecution’s report referenced an anonymous tip. The judge asked the defense to identify the legal basis for disclosure and suggested the court could require testimony from the detective who referenced the tip; the court did not enter a final ruling on that motion during the hearing.
Procedure and next steps were laid out on the record: the court allowed inspection of physical evidence (the state indicated it was not opposed to inspection), denied the continuance request, and reserved further argument on remaining pretrial motions until after counsel had an opportunity to view the videos with the defendant.
The hearing record shows the parties coordinated on loading and viewing the files in court to avoid delaying the scheduled jury selection.
