328 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pet. ref'd) (distinguishing Texas Attorney General’s Office from “prosecution team” of police, investigating agencies, and other agencies “closely aligned with the prosecution”). The State urges us to apply this “prosecution team” concept within the single agency of the Travis County District Attorney, suggesting that it was required to disclose only the Brady materials known to the office employees personally involved in the Hall prosecution. We find no support for the State’s position. See Ex parte Richardson, 70 S.W.3d 865, 871-73 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (duty under Brady applied despite prosecutor’s lack of personal knowledge of favorable information in office files); see also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) (<HOLDING>) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 272
holding that when a judicial office is created by legislative act or municipal ordinance  the office is regarded as a de facto office until the act or ordinance is declared invalid holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee holding that an outofstate attorney paying rent for a desk in an attorneys instate office had satisfied the office requirement recognizing a nonresident who receives the most votes for elected office does not hold the office but not discussing the de facto officer doctrine recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole