HOUSTON – A new chapter is unfolding in one of Houston’s most closely watched murder cases.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals has ordered a hearing on Antonio ‘A.J.’ Armstrong Jr.’s motion for a new trial, after his defense team argued that prosecutors failed to disclose a complaint accusing a key forensic expert of misconduct.
Recommended Videos
SEE ALSO: AJ Armstrong’s team prepares for appeals hearing as DA’s Office vows to uphold conviction
Armstrong was found guilty in 2023 for the 2016 shooting deaths of his parents, Dawn and Antonio Armstrong Sr. His first two trials ended with hung juries, but the third led to a conviction.
Now, the appellate court says the trial judge “abused its discretion in not holding a hearing on the motion for new trial and sustain appellant’s first issue,” the order reads. The court ruled that the motion raised reasonable grounds showing Armstrong “could potentially be entitled to relief.”
In its written opinion, the court didn’t decide whether prosecutors broke the rules, but it ordered the case sent back to the trial court for a full hearing. That hearing must take place by January 6, 2026, and a record of the proceedings must be sent back to the appeals court by February 6, 2026.
Until then, Armstrong’s appeal is paused. Once the lower court completes the hearing, the appeal will be reinstated.
At the center of this legal battle is Officer Celestina Rossi, a blood-spatter expert whose testimony helped prosecutors link Armstrong to the crime scene.
Defense attorneys say prosecutors failed to disclose a complaint filed against Rossi with the Texas Forensic Science Commission. That complaint, submitted by Dr. Robert Collins, accused Rossi of planting DNA evidence in another murder case in a different county, according to the order.
Appellate attorney Patrick McCann told the three-judge panel in October that the complaint should have been shared before Armstrong’s third trial because it directly called Rossi’s credibility into question.
“That goes to the heart of her integrity,” McCann said during the October hearing. “Even if it wasn’t proven, we should have known about it. It could have changed how we handled her testimony.”
Trial attorney Rick DeToto, who represented Armstrong in court, said learning about the complaint years later was “devastating.”
“To learn that there was something out there that could have impacted our strategy, it’s just devastating,” he said.
During the October hearing prosecutors argued there was no Brady violation, saying the complaint had nothing to do with the Armstrong case and was dismissed by the forensic science commission as unfounded.
“It has to have something to do with this case and it doesn’t,” said Assistant District Attorney Alan Curry. “There’s no indication anything improper happened here.”
Curry said that under Texas law, unproven complaints can’t be used to attack a witness’s credibility. He also argued that Rossi’s blood evidence wasn’t the deciding factor in Armstrong’s conviction.
“This case has a mountain of circumstantial evidence,” lead prosecutor John Jordan said after the October hearing. “Not only was he the only person in the room awake at the time. Cell phone evidence, his own statement to 9-1-1 as well as statements of law enforcement convicted him.”
The Armstrong case has captured Houston’s attention for nearly a decade filled with twists, mistrials, and emotional testimony.
Armstrong, who was 16 when his parents were killed, has always maintained his innocence. Prosecutors continue to say the evidence against him is overwhelming.
Nearly nine years later, the legal fight isn’t over. With the appeals court’s latest decision, the case will return to the trial court and the debate over key evidence will continue into 2026.