Published: December 18, 2025
Author: Injustice Spotlight Staff
A Harris County murder conviction is drawing renewed scrutiny as legal advocates warn it could significantly weaken digital privacy protections in Texas and beyond.
The case involves Jamin Stocker, who was convicted of capital murder despite the absence of eyewitnesses, surveillance footage, forensic phone location data, or a confession. Central to the conviction is the warrantless seizure and search of Stocker’s cell phone—an action an appellate court initially found unconstitutional before later reversing course.
In an earlier opinion, Justice Kevin Jewell of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals ruled that the warrant affidavit failed to establish any factual connection between Stocker’s phone and the alleged crime, stating there were no facts tying the device to “any offense, much less the charged offense of capital murder.” That ruling ordered a new trial.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later intervened, relying on a 2022 precedent to hold that a warrant need not show that a phone was used before, during, or after a crime in order to justify its search. On remand, the Fourteenth Court upheld the phone search, citing officer testimony and the collective-knowledge doctrine, which allows officers to rely on information possessed by other officers—even when that information is unclear or unverified.
The affidavit used to obtain the warrant has also been challenged. Prosecutors acknowledged in court that portions of the affidavit intended to bolster the credibility of an anonymous tipster were untrue. Nevertheless, the search was upheld based on inferences not explicitly stated in the affidavit itself.
The phone search produced more than 5,600 pages of digital content used by prosecutors to support their theory of guilt. Yet phone records showed no location data for the night of the murder. Prosecutors argued this indicated Stocker disabled tracking, while also acknowledging evidence that he was streaming music during the same time period.
Additional concerns surfaced after trial when police reports revealed an alternative motive for the killing involving a counterfeit money and drug dispute—information never presented to the jury. This directly contradicted trial testimony asserting Stocker was the only person with a motive.
Stocker also raised constitutional challenges prior to trial, including claims of racial underrepresentation on the grand jury and violations of his right to a speedy trial. Those motions were denied without written findings, and defense access to jury records was restricted.
Since his incarceration, Stocker has alleged further due-process violations within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, including disciplinary actions that resulted in prolonged placement in violent housing conditions and severe limits on communication.
Advocates warn the broader implications of the case extend well beyond Stocker’s conviction.
“This case highlights how easily constitutional protections can be eroded when courts allow speculation to replace facts,” said advocates with Injustice Spotlight. “If phones can be seized and searched without a clear nexus to a crime, no one’s digital privacy is truly secure.”
Since June, Stocker’s appeal has remained pending before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which has not yet required a response from the State or set a timetable for review. Jamin's family is urging the public to sign his change.org petition>