1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS IMPROPERLY FOCUS SOLELY ON THE CONDUCT OF THE LEAD PROSECUTOR IN HOLDING THAT TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY OVERULING APPELLANT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL?
TEXAS AND FEDERAL LAW FIRMLY HOLD THAT THE TERM "PROSECUTION" ENCOMPASSES THE ENTIRE PROSECUTORIAL TEAM – NOT MERELY A CASE'S LEAD PROSECUTOR. IN REVIEWING THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT THE STATE RECKLESSLY / BUREAUCRATICALLY WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, THE 13th COURT OF APPEALS FOCUSED SOLELY ON THE MENS REA OF THE STATE'S LEAD PROSECUTOR WITHOUT EXAMINING THE REMAINDER OF THE STATE'S PROSECUTION TEAM.
2. THE RECORD FULLY DEMONSTRATES AN “ESSENCE OF MARY CANO” AS PER THE 13TH COURT APPEALS. DID THE 13TH COURT APPEALS ERR IN DECIDING ON “if the result of appellant's trial would have been different with Cano's testimony”. THE STATE'S PROSECUTION TEAM, ERRONEOUSLY AND REPEATEDLY WITHHOLD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, EXCULPATORY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, TWC Commission Policy AND PRECEDENT TOTAL PARTIAL UNEMPLOYMENT, DESPITE MULTIPLE REFERENCES TO MARY CANO’S POSITION FIRMLY ROOTED IN FEDERAL AND STATE LAW ”the Texas Workforce does not consider substitute teaching as employment”. DID THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY IGNORING AND CONTRADICTING EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW?
P 106 7-25 TRIAL RECORD
3. DOES A PROSECUTOR HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE ALL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE UNDER BRADY V. MARYLAND WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS UNAWARE OF SPECIALIZED STATE AGENCY POLICY AND THE STATE AGENCY IS PART OF THE PROSECUTORIAL TEAM?
APPEALS POLICY AND PRECEDENT MANUAL
TOTAL AND PARTIAL UNEMPLOYMENT
TPU 105.00 CONTRACT OBLIGATION.
INCLUDES CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT'S CONTRACTS
OR AGREEMENTS HAVE AN EFFECT ON DETERMINING HIS
Appeal No. 82-4799-10-0782. Substitute teachers may have reasonable
assurance of continued employment within the meaning of
Section 3(f) (now codified as Section 207.041) of the Act. In determining
whether such reasonable assurance exists with regard to
substitute teachers, the following criteria should be utilized:
The school district must furnish to the Commission
written statements which provide facts that the substitute
teacher has been asked to continue in the
same capacity for the following academic year. Simply
placing the substitute teacher on a list for the following
year does not establish reasonable assurance.
It must be shown that both parties expect the relationship
to resume at the beginning of the following
year. The assurance must also be based on past experience
with regard to the number of substitutes
needed in the past.