HOUSTON – The Harris County District Attorney’s Office is asking the state’s highest criminal court to intervene in the long-running legal battle over Antonio “A.J.” Armstrong Jr.’s murder conviction.
This week, prosecutors filed a petition urging the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to stop a lower court from moving forward with a hearing that could open the door to a new trial.
Recommended Videos
The request marks the latest twist in a case that has captured Houston’s attention for nearly a decade.
Armstrong was convicted in 2023 of killing his parents, Dawn and Antonio Armstrong Sr., in their Bellaire home. His first two trials ended with hung juries before a third jury found him guilty of capital murder.
In November, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge should have held a hearing on Armstrong’s motion for a new trial. The appellate court found that the defense had presented enough information to raise “reasonable grounds” for relief and ordered the trial court to conduct a full evidentiary hearing by January 6, 2026.
Prosecutors responded by asking the Court of Criminal Appeals to step in. The DA’s filing argues that Armstrong failed to meet the legal burden required to justify a hearing, and that the Court of Appeals overstepped its authority by ordering one anyway. The petition states that the court’s ruling effectively allows Armstrong to “fish for facts” that were never supported in his motion for a new trial.
“The order issued by the Court of Appeals allows Armstrong to fish for facts and evidence to support his otherwise unsupported claims in contradiction to this Court’s precedent,” the filing reads.
The state’s argument centers on a misconduct complaint involving forensic expert Celestina Rossi. The defense says prosecutors should have disclosed a complaint filed with the Texas Forensic Science Commission that accused Rossi of planting DNA in an unrelated murder case. The complaint was later dismissed. The DA’s office says the material was publicly available long before Armstrong’s 2023 trial, meaning it was not suppressed and does not qualify as a Brady violation. Prosecutors also argue that the defense failed to show the complaint would have been admissible or relevant.
“Nothing in Armstrong’s filings or the record before the trial court showed that the State suppressed information that Dr. [Robert] Collins filed a complaint against Officer Rossi or that the TFSC dismissed the complaint,” the filing reads. “The complaint, dismissal of the complaint, minutes of the meeting discussing the complaint, and a video-recording of the hearing with Dr. Collins were all publicly available since 2019; meaning, had counsel used reasonable diligence he could have obtained them before the 2023 trial.”
Attorney Nathan Beedle, a former Deputy Chief of Criminal Courts at the DA’s Office who is not involved in this case, explained the unusual nature of the filing.
“They’re asking for the highest court in the state of Texas to tell the Court of Appeals that they made a mistake and stop the hearing,” Beedle said.
He added that while the state occasionally seeks review of appellate decisions, it happens in only a small percentage of cases and is especially rare when the goal is to block a trial-level evidentiary hearing.
Armstrong’s appellate team has argued that the complaint about Rossi’s conduct should have been disclosed because it speaks directly to her credibility. Rossi’s blood-spatter testimony at trial was used to connect Armstrong to the crime scene. Defense attorneys maintain that knowing about the complaint could have changed how they prepared for her testimony.
During an October hearing, Armstrong’s lawyers told the appeals court that even if the allegations against Rossi were unproven, the information should have been turned over. Prosecutors countered that the complaint had nothing to do with the Armstrong case, was dismissed as unfounded, and would not have been admissible to challenge Rossi’s credibility.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has not said when it will issue a ruling. If the court grants the DA’s request, the appellate court’s order for a January hearing will be withdrawn. If the request is denied, the hearing will move forward, and the trial court will gather new evidence before sending the record back to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.
Nearly ten years after the killings, the Armstrong case continues to move through unexpected turns. With the DA’s latest filing, the final outcome is far from certain and the state’s highest criminal court will now determine the next chapter.