Opinion ID: 63763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impediment to the ability to investigate

Text: Goodrum additionally argues prejudice to his ability to investigate based on the District Clerk's denial of his request for information about the charges. The Clerk relied on Section 552.028 of the Texas Government Code, which exempts governmental agencies from complying with requests for information from, inter alia, a person who is imprisoned in a correctional facility. [65] Goodrum asserts that his inability to obtain basic information regarding names of the complainants, dates of the offenses, dates of the indictments, probable cause affidavits, the court number, and a copy of the indictments severely impaired his defense by rendering him unable to file unspecified motions or to contact unnamed witnesses whose memories might otherwise fade. The State contends Goodrum has waived this contention by failing to raise it before the state appeals or district courts. Even assuming that Goodrum preserved this argument, his vague and conclusory allegations that the denial of information impeded his defense are insufficient to constitute proof of prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Hayes. [66] While `faded memory [of witnesses] may result in prejudice, we have held that in order to prejudice the defense to the extent necessary to constitute a speedy trial violation, the faded memory must substantially relate to a material fact in issue.' Jamerson v. Estelle. [67] Goodrum has not identified those witnesses whose memories he might have refreshed or demonstrated the requisite nexus between their testimony and a fact material to his defense. In fact, Goodrum has conceded that he cannot show that the delay caused his witnesses to be unable to recall certain facts concerning the case. Goodrum similarly does not explain what motions he would have filed if the State had provided the requested information, let alone what those motions would have accomplished. We conclude that Goodrum has not shown prejudice to his case resulting from his inability personally to obtain information from the District Clerk regarding the pending indictments.