Case Dealing With ''Fabricated Testimony Claim'' In Texas
In Butler v. State, 6 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999), the defendant alleged that among other points, witnesses fabricated testimony. See 6 S.W.3d at 643.
The court held that the "appellant either complains about matters that he could . . . object to at trial, or he suggests that evidence was fabricated without explaining why he could not have known of these alleged fabrications at trial." Id.
In Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), the court held that an affidavit asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel was "conclusory in nature" because it failed to allege facts that counsel did not properly investigate the facts and failed to subpoena two witnesses. See Jordan, 883 S.W.2d at 665. Therefore, the motion for new trial "was not sufficient to put the trial judge on notice that reasonable grounds existed to believe counsel's representation may have been ineffective." Id.