Criminal Defense Motions in Texas & Federal Court

What a Criminal Motion Is (and Why Motions Decide Cases)

A criminal motion is a formal request asking a judge to rule on a legal question or take a specific action in a case. Most motions are written: they carry a caption identifying the court and cause number, a title naming the relief sought, a recitation of the facts, the legal authority that supports the request, and a proposed order the judge can sign. Some motions are made orally on the record during a hearing or trial. Either way, a motion is the mechanism by which the defense — or the State — asks the court to do something the law allows.

The reason motions matter so much is simple: the overwhelming majority of criminal cases are resolved without a jury ever returning a verdict. Cases end in dismissals, negotiated pleas, and pretrial rulings that reshape what each side can prove. A motion to suppress that keeps a gun, a statement, or a lab result out of evidence can leave the State without a case. A motion to quash can expose a charging instrument that never alleged a crime in the first place. A discovery motion can force the prosecution to hand over the exact material that changes how a case is valued. These rulings happen months before trial, and they frequently decide the outcome.

Motions also allocate the burden of proof on discrete issues. When the defense challenges a warrantless search, for example, the State typically must justify the intrusion — the motion flips the ordinary posture and puts the government on the defensive. A motion in limine can keep the jury from ever hearing a prejudicial fact. A motion for an instructed verdict tests whether the State's evidence, even viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, actually satisfies every element of the offense.

Just as important, motions build the written record. An issue that is not raised and ruled on in the trial court is usually lost on appeal. A carefully drafted motion, a hearing, and a ruling preserve the question so a higher court can review it later. That is why experienced defense lawyers treat motions not as paperwork but as the primary battlefield of a criminal case — the place where evidence is won or lost, where charges live or die, and where the appellate record is made.

This guide maps the major criminal motions used in Texas state court and in federal court. For each category, it explains what the motion does, when it must be filed, and the statute or rule that governs it, and it links to a dedicated page for every motion so you can go deeper on the one that matters to your case.

The Three Phases: Pretrial, Trial, and Post-Trial Motions

Criminal motions fall into three broad phases, defined by when they are filed and what they are meant to accomplish. Understanding the sequence helps explain why timing is often as important as substance.

Pretrial motions are filed after charges and before a jury is seated, and they do the heaviest lifting. This is where the defense moves to suppress illegally obtained evidence, to dismiss or quash a defective charging instrument, to compel the State's file, to reduce bond, to sever defendants or offenses, to move the trial to another county, and to raise competency or the insanity defense. In Texas, the trial court may set a pretrial hearing under article 28.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to hear these matters together; in federal court, the judge sets a motions deadline under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Miss the deadline and an otherwise strong motion can be waived.

Trial motions are made during jury selection, testimony, and argument, often on short notice and sometimes in the middle of a witness's answer. These include motions in limine carried into trial, objections that ripen into a motion to strike, a motion for mistrial when an incurable error poisons the proceeding, and — at the close of the State's evidence — a motion for an instructed verdict in Texas or a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal in federal court, each testing whether the prosecution's proof is legally sufficient. In federal conspiracy trials, a James hearing may determine whether co-conspirator statements can be admitted at all.

Post-trial motions come after the verdict or plea. A motion for new trial asks the trial court to vacate the result and start over on grounds such as newly discovered evidence or jury misconduct. A motion in arrest of judgment attacks a judgment for a defect apparent on the record. A motion to withdraw a plea seeks to undo a guilty or nolo plea shown to be involuntary or unknowing. These motions also serve a second function: they preserve issues and, in some instances, develop a record for appeal.

Across all three phases, one principle holds. To complain about an error on appeal, you generally must have raised it in the trial court, obtained a ruling, and made a record. Motions are how that record gets built. The phase in which a motion belongs dictates its deadline, its standard, and often whether the issue survives at all — which is why a defense strategy is, in practice, a motion calendar sequenced from the first appearance through sentencing.

Texas vs. Federal: Two Rulebooks

Texas state prosecutions and federal prosecutions run on two separate rulebooks. A criminal case in a Texas district or county court is governed primarily by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the Texas Rules of Evidence, and the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. A federal case in the Northern or Eastern District of Texas is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and Title 18 of the U.S. Code. The two systems pursue many of the same objectives — keeping out illegal evidence, testing the charging instrument, forcing disclosure — but they do so under different provisions, different deadlines, and different names.

The core functions map closely even when the citations do not. A Texas motion to suppress rests on the statutory exclusionary rule in article 38.23; its federal counterpart is filed under Rule 12(b)(3)(C). A Texas motion to quash or set aside a charging instrument corresponds to a federal motion to dismiss the indictment under Rule 12(b). Texas discovery flows through the Michael Morton Act in article 39.14, while federal discovery combines Rule 16, the constitutional Brady obligation, and the Jencks Act. The table below shows the principal equivalents.

The differences are not merely cosmetic. Federal practice imposes a rigid Speedy Trial Act clock measured in days; Texas measures its speedy-indictment obligations by court terms and fixed windows. Federal grand jury practice has no direct Texas analog for the same challenges. Deadlines, the availability of pretrial relief, and the standards of proof at a hearing can all diverge. If you treat a case as governed by the wrong framework — assuming a state rule applies to a federal matter, or the reverse — you can forfeit relief that was available under the correct one. Identifying the governing rulebook is the first step in building any motion strategy.

Suppression Motions: Keeping Illegal Evidence Out

Suppression motions are the workhorses of criminal defense. They ask the court to exclude evidence the government obtained in violation of the constitution or a statute, and when they succeed they can remove the very proof a prosecution depends on. In Texas, the exclusionary remedy is written into statute: article 38.23 bars evidence obtained in violation of the constitution or laws of Texas or the United States. In federal court, suppression is raised under Rule 12(b)(3)(C) and enforced through the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and cases such as Mapp v. Ohio and Wong Sun v. United States.

Physical evidence is the most familiar target. A motion to suppress physical evidence challenges the stop, the search, the seizure, or the arrest that produced a gun, drugs, or a device — arguing there was no reasonable suspicion, no probable cause, no valid warrant, and no exception that would excuse the absence of one. Because a warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable, the motion often shifts the burden to the State to justify what the officers did.

Statements are a second front. A motion to suppress a statement or confession attacks a custodial statement taken without warnings or a valid waiver, one that was not recorded as Texas law requires, or one that was not voluntary. Texas layers articles 38.22 and 38.21 on top of the Miranda rule and requires a separate judicial determination of voluntariness.

Identifications are a third. A motion to suppress identification targets a show-up, photo array, or lineup so suggestive that it created a substantial likelihood of misidentification, invoking due process and the reliability factors developed in cases like Neil v. Biggers and United States v. Wade.

Federal cases add specialized suppression tools. A Franks hearing, named for Franks v. Delaware, lets the defense attack a search-warrant affidavit that contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods — or material omissions — that were necessary to the finding of probable cause. It requires a substantial preliminary showing before the court will hold the hearing, but if the false material is set aside and the affidavit no longer supports probable cause, the search fails. And in wiretap prosecutions, a motion to suppress wiretap evidence under Title III challenges interceptions that were not truly necessary, that were not properly minimized, or that rested on a facially insufficient order, invoking 18 U.S.C. §§ 2515 and 2518.

Each of these motions turns on a fact-intensive hearing where officers testify and the record is made. Winning suppression does not always end a case, but it frequently changes its entire trajectory.

Dismissal & Charging-Instrument Motions

Dismissal and charging-instrument motions attack the case itself rather than a single piece of evidence. Some argue that the document charging you is legally defective; others argue that, defect or not, the prosecution is barred from going forward at all.

In Texas, the charging instrument can be challenged two ways. A motion to quash the indictment or information under articles 27.08 and 27.09 attacks a document that fails to allege an offense or does not give you adequate notice of what you must defend against — a vagueness, form, duplicity, or notice defect. A broader motion to set aside or dismiss the charging instrument under articles 27.03, 28.061, and 32.01 seeks to end the prosecution outright for a fatal defect, a denial of speedy indictment, or another legal bar such as prior jeopardy or a grant of immunity.

Timing itself can be a ground for dismissal. A Texas speedy-trial motion asserts the constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment and article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution, applying the four-factor framework of Barker v. Wingo to argue that undue delay warrants dismissal. Texas has no enforceable statutory speedy-trial act, so the analysis is constitutional.

Federal practice offers a parallel set of tools, filed under Rule 12. A motion to dismiss the indictment challenges a facially defective, duplicitous, multiplicitous, or legally insufficient charge, or raises a statute-of-limitations or constitutional defect. A motion to dismiss for grand jury abuse targets prosecutorial misconduct or structural defects in the grand jury process, drawing on cases like Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States and United States v. Williams. A motion to dismiss for selective or vindictive prosecution argues the charges were brought on a discriminatory basis or to punish you for exercising a legal right, under United States v. Armstrong and Blackledge v. Perry.

Finally, the constitution itself can bar a prosecution. A double jeopardy motion under Rule 12(b) and the Fifth Amendment seeks to block a reprosecution or multiple punishments for the same offense, using the same-elements test and the issue-preclusion principles recognized in Abney v. United States.

These motions are among the most consequential in criminal practice, because a granted dismissal can end the case. They are also among the most technical: the deadlines are strict, the standards are demanding, and a poorly preserved challenge can be waived. That is why they are drafted with the governing article or rule quoted precisely and the record built to support review.

Discovery Motions: Forcing the State's File

Discovery motions force the government to open its file. What the State discloses — and when — often determines how a case is valued, whether a suppression issue even exists, and whether a plea makes sense. Texas and federal court reach disclosure through different mechanisms, but both recognize that the defense cannot answer evidence it has never seen.

Texas discovery is governed by the Michael Morton Act, article 39.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Enacted after a wrongful conviction, the statute requires the State, on a timely request, to produce offense reports, witness statements, documents, and tangible evidence, and it imposes a continuing, affirmative duty under subsection (h) to disclose anything that tends to negate guilt or reduce punishment — the exculpatory and impeachment material the constitution also requires under Brady v. Maryland. A Michael Morton discovery motion invokes that framework, including the disclosure of favorable evidence and the credibility information tied to jailhouse informants.

Federal discovery is assembled from several sources, and the defense usually files for each. A Rule 16 discovery motion compels the defendant's own statements, criminal record, documents and objects, examination reports, and a summary of the opinion testimony the government's witnesses will offer. A Brady/Giglio motion compels the exculpatory and impeachment evidence the constitution requires — the deals, payments, and credibility material addressed in Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and Kyles v. Whitley. A Jencks Act motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Rule 26.2 compels a testifying government witness's prior statements — though the Act generally times that production to after the witness testifies on direct.

A related tool sharpens a vague indictment. A motion for a bill of particulars under Rule 7(f) asks the government to specify the factual basis of the charge — the when, where, and how — so the defense can prepare, avoid unfair surprise, and protect against a later double-jeopardy problem. It is not a substitute for discovery, but in a sprawling conspiracy case it can be the difference between a defense that is ready and one that is guessing.

Discovery motions rarely make headlines, but they are where cases are quietly won and lost. A single disclosed report can expose an unlawful stop, contradict a key witness, or reveal that the government's forensic witness cannot support its own conclusion. Filing early, framing each request to the governing statute, and pressing for timely production are the practical mechanics of turning the State's file into a defense.

Bond & Pretrial-Liberty Motions

Bond and pretrial-liberty motions address a question that matters from the first day of a case: whether you fight the charges from home or from a jail cell. Pretrial detention affects far more than comfort. A person who is released can meet with counsel freely, gather evidence, keep a job, and support a family; a person who is held is under constant pressure to resolve the case quickly, sometimes on unfavorable terms. For that reason, liberty motions are a core part of early defense work.

In Texas, bail is governed by article 17.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which directs that bail be set high enough to secure a defendant's appearance but not used as an instrument of oppression, and requires the court to weigh the accused's ability to make bail, the nature of the offense, and community safety. A motion to reduce bond asks the court to lower an excessive amount or grant a personal bond, and it can be paired with a writ of habeas corpus under article 11.24 when bail is truly excessive. Article 17.151 adds a powerful lever: when the State is not ready for trial within the statutory window, the defendant is generally entitled to release on a personal bond or a reduced amount. The same motion practice can seek to modify onerous bond conditions.

Federal pretrial release runs on the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The statute favors release on conditions but authorizes detention when no condition will reasonably assure appearance and community safety, and in certain drug and firearm cases it applies a rebuttable presumption in favor of detention. A motion to revoke or amend detention seeks release or modified conditions and, under § 3145, asks a district judge to review a magistrate judge's detention order. It attacks the government's proof at the detention hearing, works to rebut the statutory presumption, and can reopen detention when circumstances change.

Both frameworks weigh similar factors — the strength of the case, ties to the community, the history and characteristics of the accused, and risk to others — but the procedures and presumptions differ sharply between the two systems. Moving quickly matters: a detention order entered at the first appearance sets the terms of everything that follows, and the sooner it is challenged with evidence and a concrete release plan, the better positioned the defense is to keep the client free while the case is fought.

Trial Motions: Shaping What the Jury Hears

Trial motions control what a jury is allowed to hear and whether the case reaches the jury at all. Many are filed before trial but argued and enforced as the evidence comes in, which is why they belong to the trial phase in practice even when they are drafted weeks ahead.

The most common is the motion in limine, which asks the court for an advance ruling that certain prejudicial matters — extraneous offenses, prior convictions, gruesome photographs, references to punishment or insurance — may not be mentioned in front of the jury without first approaching the bench. It does not by itself preserve error, but it prevents the jury from hearing damaging material before an objection can be made. In federal court the same function rests on the court's inherent authority under Rules 103 and 401 through 403.

Other trial motions shape the structure of the proceeding. A motion to sever separates jointly charged defendants (Texas article 36.09) or splits offenses joined from the same criminal episode (Texas Penal Code section 3.04) so that evidence admissible against one does not spill over onto another. A motion for continuance under articles 29.03 and 29.06 postpones the trial for sufficient cause, such as an absent material witness or late, voluminous discovery. And a motion for change of venue under article 31A.004 — recodified from the former article 31.03 effective January 1, 2025 — asks that the trial be moved to another county when pretrial publicity or community prejudice makes a fair and impartial jury impossible to seat.

Scientific and forensic evidence gets its own gatekeeping motion. A Kelly-Daubert challenge under Texas Rule of Evidence 702 attacks the reliability or qualification of the State's forensic witness, drawing on Kelly v. State and Daubert v. Merrell Dow to keep unreliable science away from the jury. In federal conspiracy trials, a James hearing — a Fifth Circuit practice under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and United States v. James — requires the court to find a conspiracy by a preponderance before co-conspirator statements can be admitted.

When something goes irreparably wrong at trial, a motion for mistrial asks the court to halt the proceeding because an incurable error has made a fair verdict impossible. And at the close of the State's evidence, the defense tests its legal sufficiency. In Texas that is a motion for an instructed verdict of acquittal; in federal court it is a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, each measured against the sufficiency standard of Jackson v. Virginia and each asking whether any rational juror could find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Together these motions are the tools that decide what the jury sees, how the trial is framed, and whether the State's proof can carry the burden the law places on it.

Competency & Mental-Health Motions

Competency and mental-health motions address two distinct questions that are often confused. Competency asks whether a defendant can participate in the case right now. The insanity defense asks whether a defendant was legally responsible at the moment of the alleged offense. They are governed by different provisions, carry different deadlines, and lead to very different outcomes.

Competency to stand trial is about the present. A defendant is incompetent if he lacks a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings or cannot consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of understanding. In Texas, a motion suggesting incompetency under articles 46B.004 and 46B.005 triggers an informal inquiry once there is some evidence of incompetency; if that threshold is met, the court can appoint a qualified examiner and, in a contested case, hold a competency trial. A finding of incompetency does not end the case — it pauses it, and the defendant may be committed for treatment aimed at restoring competency.

The insanity defense is about the past. A notice of the insanity defense must be filed at least 20 days before trial under article 46C.051, and it opens the door to a court-ordered mental examination under article 46C.101. The substantive standard comes from Texas Penal Code section 8.01: whether, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, the defendant did not know that his conduct was wrong. A successful defense results not in a simple acquittal but in a special verdict and a distinct commitment process.

Federal law follows a similar division. A motion for a competency evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 asks the court to order a hearing and examination to determine whether the defendant is mentally competent to stand trial, measured against the standard recognized in Dusky v. United States. Federal insanity claims are handled separately under the notice provisions of Rule 12.2.

These motions carry obligations that reach beyond strategy. Defense counsel has a duty to raise a genuine competency concern, because trying a defendant who cannot understand or assist violates due process. Timing is unforgiving — the 20-day insanity notice in particular can be lost if it is not calendared early. Because the evaluations, standards, and dispositions differ so sharply between competency and insanity, and between Texas and federal court, these motions call for careful framing at the very start of a case rather than on the eve of trial.

Post-Trial & Plea Motions

Post-trial and plea motions are the last opportunities to correct a result in the trial court before an appeal. They can vacate a verdict, undo a plea, or set aside a judgment — and they also preserve issues and build the record that an appellate court will later review.

The most important is the motion for new trial. In Texas, a motion for new trial under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure asks the trial court to vacate the verdict and grant a retrial on enumerated grounds — newly discovered evidence, jury misconduct or outside influence, a verdict against the great weight of the evidence, or a record developed to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The deadline is strict: the motion must be filed within 30 days after the trial court imposes or suspends sentence in open court, under Rule 21.4. In federal court, the parallel tool is a Rule 33 motion for new trial, which allows a new trial in the interest of justice, including on newly discovered evidence, with its own filing windows.

A second Texas motion attacks the judgment on its face. A motion in arrest of judgment under Rule 22 targets a defect apparent on the record before the sentence is final — for example, a charging-instrument defect that survived the verdict, a conviction for an offense that was never charged, or a jurisdictional flaw. Its grounds overlap with the motion for new trial, and the two are frequently filed together.

Plea cases have their own remedy. When a guilty or nolo plea was not voluntary or knowing, the defense can move to withdraw it. In federal court, a Rule 11(d) motion to withdraw a guilty plea allows withdrawal before sentencing for a fair and just reason — and, before the court accepts the plea, for any reason at all. Common grounds include an involuntary or unknowing plea, a defective plea colloquy, ineffective assistance, or a breached plea agreement. Texas recognizes plea-withdrawal standards as well, calibrated to whether the case has been taken under advisement.

These motions run on short clocks. The 30-day new-trial deadline in Texas operates as a firm limit, and federal windows are equally unforgiving. Because the same facts can support several of these motions at once, and because each one can preserve a separate issue for appeal, they are drafted together, filed promptly, and supported by affidavits or a hearing that puts the necessary facts into the record.

Timing & Deadlines: The Motion Calendar

Every criminal motion runs on a clock, and in criminal practice the clock is often unforgiving. A motion that would have won can be waived simply because it was filed a day late or was never calendared at the start of a case. The specific deadlines vary by court, by a judge's scheduling order, and by the facts, but a handful of framing timelines shape almost every case. The table below lays them out as general reference points, not as legal advice for any particular situation.

Two features of this calendar deserve emphasis. First, some deadlines are the defense's to meet and others are the government's to satisfy — and the difference matters. The Texas speedy-indictment window in article 32.01 and the federal Speedy Trial Act clock in 18 U.S.C. § 3161 run against the State; when the government misses them, dismissal can follow. By contrast, the new-trial deadline in Rule 21.4 and the court's pretrial-motions deadline under Rule 12(c) run against the defense, and missing them can waive the issue entirely.

Second, the federal clock is measured in days but riddled with excludable time. Continuances granted in the ends of justice, the litigation of pretrial motions, and competency proceedings can all stop the clock, which is why the raw number of days on a docket rarely tells the whole story.

Because these timelines interact — a pending motion can toll a speedy-trial clock, and a scheduling order can compress a motions deadline — the only reliable approach is to map the calendar at the outset of a case. Deadlines vary by court and by case; confirm the dates that apply to your situation with counsel before relying on any general timeline.

How L&L Uses Motions to Fight Your Case

At L and L Law Group, PLLC, we treat motion practice as the core of a criminal defense, not an afterthought. From the first meeting, the goal is to identify every issue a motion can reach — an unlawful stop, a coerced statement, a suggestive identification, a defective charge, an excessive bond, a missing piece of the State's file — and to sequence those motions across the life of the case.

The work begins with investigation and records. Before a motion can be written, the facts have to be developed: the reports, the video, the warrant affidavit, the lab results, and the witness statements. We use the discovery tools described in this guide — the Michael Morton Act in Texas, and Rule 16, Brady, and the Jencks Act in federal court — to force disclosure of the material that shows whether a constitutional or statutory violation occurred. What that record reveals dictates which motions have a foundation and which do not.

From there, the analysis proceeds issue by issue. Was there reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the search? Were warnings given, and was any waiver valid? Does the charging instrument actually allege an offense and give proper notice? Is the bond set as security or as oppression? Is the State's forensic witness relying on a reliable method? Each question maps to a specific motion, a specific statute or rule, and a specific hearing where officers and analysts testify under oath and the record is built.

Motion practice also shapes negotiation. A pending motion to suppress that could remove key evidence, or a discovery motion that exposes a weakness in a central witness, changes how a case is valued long before trial. Preparing and litigating motions is often what creates the leverage that makes a favorable resolution possible — and, when a case does go to trial, the same motions preserve the issues that protect the right to appeal.

Reggie London and Njeri London, the firm's co-founding partners, handle criminal defense in the Texas state courts of the Dallas–Fort Worth area and in the federal Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas. Every case is different, and nothing in this guide is a prediction about any particular outcome; it is a map of the tools the law makes available and how they fit together.

If you are facing charges in Texas or federal court, you can talk through your situation with our team. Call L and L Law Group, PLLC at (972) 370-5060 or email info@landllawgroup.com to arrange a confidential consultation.

How Courts Have Shaped Criminal-Motion Practice

Criminal motions draw their force from controlling case law as much as statutes; these landmark decisions define the constitutional standards governing suppression, disclosure, speedy-trial, sufficiency, double-jeopardy, detention, and expert-evidence practice.

• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) — Evidence obtained through searches and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal prosecutions, extending the exclusionary rule to the states.
• Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) — Evidence derived from an unlawful search or arrest is inadmissible unless its connection to the illegality becomes attenuated enough to dissipate the taint.
• Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) — A defendant may obtain a hearing challenging a search-warrant affidavit by substantially showing it contained a knowing or reckless falsehood necessary to probable cause.
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) — Before custodial interrogation, police must warn a suspect of the rights to silence and counsel; statements taken without a valid waiver are inadmissible.
• Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) — Prosecutors violate due process by suppressing evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment, regardless of good or bad faith.
• Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) — The prosecution's disclosure duty extends to impeachment evidence, including promises of leniency to key witnesses, and binds the entire prosecutor's office.
• Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) — Speedy-trial claims are assessed by balancing four factors: length of delay, reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice.
• Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) — Evidence is legally sufficient if, viewed most favorably to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1931) — Two statutory provisions are separate offenses for double-jeopardy purposes if each requires proof of a fact the other does not.
• United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) — Pretrial detention of dangerous arrestees under the Bail Reform Act is constitutional regulation, not punishment, and does not facially violate due process.
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) — The Federal Rules superseded Frye; trial judges act as gatekeepers ensuring expert scientific testimony rests on valid methodology and is both relevant and reliable.
• Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) — Under Texas Rule 702, not Frye, a proponent must prove novel scientific evidence reliable and relevant by clear and convincing evidence.

These are general summaries of published decisions for information only — not predictions about any specific case.