the record need not reflect the evidence suppressed, we have no need to assume the viewing of such a video. Furthermore, the record does not show that the trial court viewed such a video or that its ruling was somehow affected by it. 5 . See, e.g., State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892, 896 (Tex.Cr.App.2002); State v. Moreno, 807 S.W.2d 327, 332 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). 6 . In re Grand Jury Investigation, 599 F.2d 1224, 1226 (3d Cir.1979). 7 . United States v. Jefferson, 623 F.3d 227, 232 (5th Cir.2010); see also United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir.2008) (overruling prior cases requiring "that the government's bare certification be backed up by a preliminary showing that the excluded evidence truly is material”); United States v. Comiskey, 460 F.2d 1293, 1297-98 (7th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 920, 924
holding that to rebut presumption plaintiff need only allege specific facts not plead evidence holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction holding certification need not allege specific evidentiary facts which constitute substantial proof of the charge alleged against defendant holding that an information charging defendant with offense of burglary that alleged that the defendant had committed an assault was not defective for failing to further allege specific facts that constituted assault holding a district court has discretion under rule 55b2 once a default is determined to require proof of necessary facts and need not agree that the alleged facts constitute a valid cause of action