Opinion No. KP-0127

Dr. Vincent Di Maio

Presiding Officer

Texas Forensic Science Commission

1700 North Congress Avenue, Suite 445

Austin, Texas 78701

Re: The admissibility of certain forensic analyses in Texas courts, statutory authority of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, and reporting requirements for certain crime laboratories



In addressing the admissibility of forensic analysis of physical evidence, article 38.35(d)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prevails over Rule 702 of the Texas Rules of Evidence to the extent of a conflict, pursuant to Rule 101(d) of the Texas Rules of Evidence.

A court would likely conclude that (1) "forensic analysis" as defined in article 38.35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from a crime laboratory that is neither accredited by the Forensic Science Commission nor exempt from accreditation by statute or administrative rule is inadmissible in a criminal action in a Texas court under article 38.35(d)(1); and (2) the Commission may refrain from granting an exemption from accreditation under article 38.01, subpart (4-d)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in its reasonable discretion.

A court would likely conclude that, pursuant to article 38.01, subpart 4(a)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a crime laboratory must report professional negligence or professional misconduct pertaining to forensic analyses in all disciplines--not just those that are accredited--to the Commission.

Opinion No. KP-0128

Mr. Lloyd B. Tisdale


San Jacinto River Authority

Post Office Box 329

Conroe, Texas 77305

Re: Whether certain financial transactions of the San Jacinto River Authority comply with the Public Funds Investment Act and the Public Funds Collateral Act (RQ-0118-KP)


Consistent with Texas Attorney General Opinion GA-0834 (2011), a court could conclude that a time deposit account fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is within the scope of an "other obligation" under Government Code subsection 2256.009(a)(4).

Given the varied state of the relevant jurisprudence, we cannot predict whether a Texas court would determine as a matter of law that a federal home loan bank is an agency or instrumentality of the United States within the scope of Government Code subsection 2256.009(a)(1).

To the extent a depository institution is an agency or instrumentality of the United States and is not otherwise limited by any governing statute in guaranteeing its obligations in a manner similar to section 1435, title 12, United States Code, a court would likely determine that a certificate of deposit investment secured by a letter of credit from such entity comports with subsection 2256.009(a)(1) of the Government Code.

Under Government Code subsection 2256.010(a)(1) - (3), a deposit of funds in a certificate of deposit must be to a depository institution that has its main office or a branch office in this State.

A court would likely conclude that a money market deposit, in an amount exceeding the amount of FDIC insurance could be secured by another obligation in Government Code subsection 2256.009(a)(4).

For further information, please access the website at or call the Opinion Committee at (512) 463-2110.


Amanda Crawford

General Counsel

Office of the Attorney General

Filed: January 18, 2017