What does this all mean? Is this all stuff that is not admissible at the jury trial?
These are requests. The specifics are in the wording of the motions, which we don't have. In conjunction with a slew of others, they will be argued in court (on June 6, I believe) and at that time a determination will be made by the judge.
The ramifications vary, depending on the motion's request, and again these are only requests to the court.
Judging from the titles (which may or may not be telling us what all we need to know)
1
Comments: Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Brady Motion: Computer- Based Evidence Obtained in Violation of Section 1702.101 of the Texas Occupations Code and Testimony Related to this Evidence [Via Forensics Cell Phone Examination]
This appears to be an allegation by defense that an unlicensed investigator was used, and the evidence found by such should be tossed. We don't have any idea what evidence this might be. However, the law apparently being used as a basis for this request is about licensing - with whatever penalty, if any, something that would be imposed on the investigator rather than on the client. So unless the title is misleading, or there's something really bizarre, this request looks like a weird longshot with no real legal basis.
2 Comments: Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Brady Motion: Computer- Based Evidence Obtained in Violation of Section 1702.101 of the Texas Occupations Code and Testimony Related to this Evidence [Via Forensics Cell Phone Examination]
This would seems obvious, but the devil is always in the details. On its face, the defense is alleging that the state searched the contents of a phone without the permission of owner and without a warrant. Whose phone, we don't know. Did it happen, we don't know. But such activity is not allowed by LE - it does take permission or a warrant to search someone's phone, and an illegal search can cause the results to be excluded from a trial.The facts of whether permission was granted, or a warrant was obtained, should make this one fairly easy to adjudicate.
3 Comments: Motion for Discovery: Identification of Witnesses who testified Before the Grand Jury and Whose Testimony was Transcribed; Production of Grand Jury Testimony Prior to Trial; Production of Grand Jury Testimony after the Witness Testifies and Sufficient Time to Review as Required by T.R.E. 615 (d)
This one is a bit murkier than it looks, a case of conflicting rights. Defense is demanding evidence (grand jury testimony) that the state has acquired, pertaining to the trial, because a defendant is entitled to exculpatory evidence. But the grand jury proceedings are legally conducted in secret and not open for the defense to examine. So this is a bit of a fishing expedition in some ways, and where it goes will depend on the specifics of the request. Would a judge give a defense attorney full and unfettered access to anything they want re a grand jury and its proceedings? Yes it's possible, but not likely, and more likely he'll instead draw a line somewhere that will be decided by the what, how, and why of the defense's specific request, and the what, how, and why of the state's answer. It's important to keep in mind that all the defense can get out of this request is information, and can't change the facts the GJ saw and heard.