What is the state been doing for the last two years , the defense still hasn't received everything from the state ?
As I understand the situation for this particular defendant, the attorney has not been on the case but for a few months, the defendant's previous attorney having begged off/quit the case. Even then the information has not been available to defense council "for two years", it having been more like a year or so, and even then it coming out in large chunks, periodically released to the various defense council.
The prosecution has been saying that the information had been supplied -- and maybe it had been.
There's been commentary coming from other defense attorneys that there has been a lot of information released, but in disorganized (apparently deliberately disorganized) data-dump fashion.
Being as the disc the prosecution supplied to defense attorney Gotro would not "play" (and display the evidence the prosecution was otherwise attempting to submit to the court) and the court spectator commentary I'd posted here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3595705/posts?page=11#11 that included such as;
She explained that due to time constraints and strict security protocol imposed by the evidence techs at the department, she has been unable to get access to the material.In some cases, she has been ushered into a computer room, given a CD of the material, and a comptuer with no speakers. In others, she has been shooed out of the area and sent to the lobby whenever there is no one available to surveil her whilst in her labors.
lends credence to the idea that the prosecution has been playing every angle they could think they could get away with playing, making it as difficult as they can for defense council.
The problem I have with that sort of thing, is if the prosecution's case is as strong as they seem to be making it out to be -- then why not assist the Court itself (including officers of the Court, which does include defense council as "officers of the Court) with finding, framing, and even testing what they would like jurors to believe is the truth of these matters?
Are they doing their duty as "finder's of truth"? Or, are they more interested in winning conviction of defendants?
Their primary duty, according to the Constitution of the State of Texas, states that each and every officer of the Court (State attorneys for prosecution, defense council, and Judges also, of course) is the former -- to be "finders of fact" [truth] instead of simply seeking to obtain trial victory for either "side".
We live in a less-than ideal world, though.