Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Crime Scene Evidence topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Crime-scene technician: four shell casings, packaged exhibits and defense challenges on scene documentation

Bexar County District Court (criminal trial) · July 15, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A crime-scene technician testified that he photographed and marked four spent shell casings and packaged multiple exhibits; on cross-examination defense lawyers highlighted gaps — no diagram, uncertainty when casings or wall defects were made, and that some items could predate the shooting.

Calvin Anderson, a crime-scene technician who has worked with the Bexar County Sheriff's Office, testified at trial that he photographed and videotaped the scene at 7718 Winsford Drive and marked four spent shell casings with evidence markers. The state entered photo and video exhibits (State's Exhibits 2–62) and later introduced packaged items corresponding to those markers (State's Exhibits 65–66).

Anderson described where the casings and a copper fragment were found: two casings near a vehicle in the driveway, one at the gate entrance to a converted outbuilding, and one beneath a vehicle. He testified he collected, inventoried and initialed evidence packages and submitted items to the property room for lab testing.

On cross-examination the defense pressed limits to Anderson's findings: he acknowledged he did not prepare a scene diagram, said he could not determine when the shell casings or defects in walls were placed, and conceded casings or wall defects "could have been there hours, days, months or even years" before the Feb. 16, 2023 shooting. Anderson also testified no firearms were recovered at the immediate residence scene and that he did not perform the lab testing himself.

Defense counsel used those concessions to argue that the physical evidence's timing and provenance have uncertainty. The jury heard that the state will seek to connect the recovered items to later lab work and to other investigative steps such as pole-camera footage used to identify a suspect vehicle.