Judge grants production order in appellate remand, sets expert and discovery deadlines

A judge in the 252nd District Court granted a motion for production of records in appellate cause F0389302 and established a schedule for expert discovery and a remand hearing.

The court opened by confirming parties present — the state (Mr. Coleman), counsel Utterson for the applicant, and other counsel including Caitlin Gilbert — and said it had reviewed briefing filed by the parties. The judge said she was "inclined, to grant that motion," explaining she did not want to limit what experts could examine before a remand hearing and risk later appellate reversal.

The ruling follows briefing that cited recent Court of Criminal Appeals authority on so‑called "new science" claims. State counsel urged the court to limit consideration to the evidence presented at trial and referenced recent opinions (including Hobart and Rourke) bearing on when a court may grant written‑relief based on new scientific evidence. Defense counsel asked the court to consider delaying action until the Roberson remand opinion is resolved if the state intends to relitigate the "new science" question; the judge said the remand before her is fact‑specific but left open that timing if the state’s anticipated approach requires waiting.

To keep the case moving while preserving the parties’ rights, the judge authorized broad discovery measures for both sides (depositions, interrogatories, requests for admission and related discovery), directed the parties to confer about a proposed scheduling order, and set firm dates to coordinate prehearing work. The court set designation of experts for Monday, Jan. 5; a deadline to complete discovery on Feb. 23; and a hearing date of March 23, with the option to move to the week of April 6 or April 13 if all parties and their out‑of‑state experts agree.

The judge emphasized she would review everything presented before making the factual findings required by the remand: the core question is whether, absent the shaken‑baby evidence, there would nonetheless have been sufficient medical or other evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict. She instructed counsel to exchange the case notebook and cited case law provided by counsel for the court’s reference.

If scheduling needs to change, the judge asked counsel to coordinate by email (including the court’s briefing attorney) so the court can adopt the alternate date promptly. The court said it will issue an order memorializing deadlines once counsel confirm availability and the parties provide any agreed dates.

Next steps: counsel will designate experts by Jan. 5 and complete discovery by Feb. 23. The court’s hearing on the remand is provisionally March 23 with the possibility of an early‑April slot if the parties’ experts require it.