Judge Kelli Johnson is reviewing emails between prosecutors as Antonio “A.J.” Armstrong’s attorneys continue their effort to challenge his 2023 conviction for the murders of his parents.
The hearing is taking place Tuesday, Oct. 27, in Harris County. Armstrong’s appeals attorneys argue that prosecutors failed to disclose information that could have been important to his defense during his third trial, including information involving prosecution witness and blood spatter expert Celestina Rossi.
Judge Kelli Johnson said the hearing would focus on the defense’s allegation of a violation under Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to disclose material evidence favorable to the defense.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, defense attorney Patrick McCann asked the judge to review emails involving Rossi and prosecutor John Jordan. The defense is seeking an in-camera inspection, meaning the judge will privately review the records to determine whether they must be disclosed.
Prosecutors said they received the emails and had already released one. The state argued the remaining communications were privileged and filed a motion to quash the request.
The judge said she would review 25 emails dating from January 2022 through January 2024, covering the period surrounding Armstrong’s trials.
McCann argued that the defense would have approached Rossi’s testimony differently if it had known about a complaint made to the Texas Forensic Science Commission accusing her of planting evidence in an unrelated case.
“The fact that this is a Brady violation is not in question,” McCann said, arguing that the information could have helped the defense challenge testimony that was significant to the prosecution’s case.
Johnson questioned why the defense was raising the issue three years after the complaint and asked when Armstrong’s legal team learned about it. McCann said that information would be addressed during the proceedings but raised concerns about discussing certain details because of attorney-client privilege.
Civil rights attorney Randall Kallinen was called as the first witness.
Several attorneys and witnesses, including Rossi, prosecutors John Jordan and Ryan Trask, and defense attorney Rick DeToto, were excused from the courtroom after being subpoenaed and before the first witness testified.
Defense attorney Chris Collins remained in the courtroom after prosecutors questioned whether he was a witness or part of the defense team. McCann confirmed Collins was part of the defense team.
The hearing does not automatically mean Armstrong will receive a new trial. The judge must consider whether the requested information should have been disclosed and whether the alleged failure to disclose it could have affected the outcome of his conviction.
9:35 a.m. - Second witness JL Carpenter called to the stand
JL Carpenter, a criminal defense attorney who worked alongside Rick DeToto on A.J. Armstrong’s case, testified that she was present for all three trials.
Carpenter said there were two differences in blood spatter expert Celestina Rossi’s testimony during the third trial: newly discovered evidence after the jury was seated and her expertise in crime scene reconstruction.
Carpenter testified that the defense team was unaware of any complaint accusing Rossi of planting evidence in an unrelated case until after the third trial’s verdict. She said Chris Collins informed her about the complaint on Aug. 17, 2023.
“Did this complaint alarm you?” Armstrong’s appeals attorney Patrick McCann asked.
“Of course,” Carpenter responded.
Carpenter said she would have handled Rossi’s testimony differently if she had known about the complaint beforehand. She described the complaint as significant impeachment evidence for the defense.
Carpenter said Rossi’s testimony about blood evidence on a piece of paper found on a shirt was particularly significant and harmful to the defense.
“We thought her testimony, before the complaint, we thought it was reaching,” Carpenter said. She added that the defense allowed the evidence to come in without challenging it and would have challenged it had the team known about the complaint.
Asked whether the defense should have been informed, Carpenter said yes.
9:41 a.m. – State begins cross-examination
Prosecutors questioned Carpenter about her experience and what she reviewed before testifying. She estimated she had participated in approximately 60 to 80 jury trials over her career.
Carpenter said she reviewed court filings, an affidavit and her subpoena before Tuesday’s hearing. She also confirmed she reviewed portions of the defense file but had not reviewed the trial transcripts.
She worked on Armstrong’s case from 2019 until she withdrew from it. Carpenter said she is not being paid for her testimony.
Prosecutors also questioned Carpenter about her knowledge of the Texas Forensic Science Commission’s decision to dismiss the complaint against Rossi. Carpenter said she recalled hearing the complaint was dismissed for jurisdictional reasons but had not watched the commission’s public meeting or read the federal civil lawsuit filed by Armstrong.
The state also asked about surveillance video showing Rossi at the property room on June 2, 2023. Carpenter recalled watching the video once and agreed Rossi would have needed an escort to access the property room.
When asked about a hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702, Carpenter said that would have been handled by DeToto, not her.
9:16 a.m. - First witness called to the stand, Civil rights attorney Randall Kallinen
Kallinen was the first witness called. He testified that he received a complaint against blood spatter expert Celestina Rossi from forensic expert Dr. Robert Collins on Aug. 17, 2023, after the jury returned its verdict in A.J. Armstrong’s third trial.
Kallinen said he believed the complaint was important for Armstrong’s criminal defense team to know about and emailed it to the team.
Under questioning from prosecutors, Kallinen acknowledged he did not watch the public recording of the Texas Forensic Science Commission discussing the complaint or review documents submitted by the Montgomery County Attorney’s Office.
Prosecutors also questioned how thoroughly Kallinen vetted Collins before relying on the complaint. Kallinen said Collins provided his résumé and that he reviewed his credentials.
Kallinen maintained that he knew the commission did not form an investigative panel because he received a letter stating that. He could not recall whether the letter explained why the complaint was dismissed.
During redirect, Kallinen said he has handled more than 200 civil rights cases and believed he had previously worked with forensic witnesses.
At 9:33 a.m., the witness was dismissed.
Armstrong was 16 when his parents, former NFL player Antonio Armstrong Sr. and Dawn Armstrong, were shot and killed inside their southwest Houston home in 2016.
His first two capital murder trials ended with hung juries. In 2023, a third jury convicted him and sentenced him to 40 years in prison.
Armstrong’s attorneys have argued that prosecutors should have disclosed information about the complaint involving Rossi before the third trial.
The Harris County District Attorney’s Office has maintained that Armstrong was properly convicted. Prosecutors previously argued the complaint was publicly available years before the 2023 trial and was irrelevant and inadmissible.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently rejected the state’s attempt to stop the proceedings, allowing the hearing to move forward.
