Discovery in criminal cases is a relatively recent development in criminal Law. In many States, the courts have provided for pretrial discovery procedures by case law. In other states including Texas, statutes have mandated such discovery. Opponents of broad discovery argue that the defendant will have a better opportunity to perjure himself, that the defendant will have a better opportunity to tamper with prospective witnesses for the prosecution, and that the State is at a severe disadvantage because of the defendant's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Nevertheless, more States have committed themselves to providing criminal defendants some form of discovery. Article 39.14 of the Texas criminal code permits the inspection and copying of certain material evidence in the possession of either the State or any of its agencieswhen and if the court grants the defendant's motion alleging good cause for discovery. Under this provision criminal discovery does not attain the breadth of civil discovery. In general, the defendant's most practical discovery technique arises during the examining trial. The criminal code provides that the defendant may take the deposition of any witness at the trial, and that either the defendant or the state may use certified copies of witness' testimony at the examining trial as evidence at the defendant's trial, provided that the witness is now unavailable. In addition, the Gaskin rule gives the defendant the right to inspect statements made prior to trial by and witness who testifies at trial on behalf of the State. Any document or object used by the State before the jury must be made available to the defendant under discovery provisions. It is concluded that the 1966 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure has provided workable procedures for formal criminal discovery. Footnotes are included in the article.