Listen to the article
A controversial legal case stemming from the 2020 George Floyd protests in Austin has escalated into a broader conflict, with major law enforcement organizations demanding the resignation of Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza over alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
At the center of the controversy is Austin Police Officer Chance Bretches, who faces charges of aggravated assault by a public servant for his actions during crowd control operations during the 2020 demonstrations. His defense attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming prosecutors withheld crucial evidence that could potentially exonerate their client.
The motion alleges that Garza’s office conducted “secret meetings” with Austin city officials about potentially holding the city or police leadership criminally liable for injuries caused by defective “less-lethal” beanbag ammunition. According to the defense, this information constitutes exculpatory evidence that prosecutors were legally obligated to disclose.
“Prosecutors can hold meetings with anybody, there’s nothing illegal about that,” defense attorney Doug O’Connell told Fox News Digital. “The problem in this case is the district attorney felt he had enough evidence to indict the city as a corporate entity, which would make the city an alternative suspect or an unindicted co-defendant.”
The motion includes sworn declarations from a former Austin city manager, who claims to have met multiple times with Garza and prosecutors in 2023 to discuss potential charges against the city, and a former city council member who was aware of internal communications regarding possible criminal charges against the city.
O’Connell argues that these meetings triggered disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland, a Supreme Court ruling that requires prosecutors to share potentially exculpatory evidence with the defense. He also cited the Michael Morton Act, a Texas law that mandates broad disclosure of evidence to defendants.
“It’s clear they didn’t turn over the evidence of why they felt they could indict the city and the city was legitimately scared about this enough that the city went out and hired their own criminal defense attorney,” O’Connell said.
In response to these allegations, two influential police organizations—the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT) and the Austin Police Retired Officers Association (APROA)—have called for Garza’s resignation. For APROA, this marks the first time they have formally demanded Garza step down, despite years of criticizing his policies.
“It’s kind of the final straw, everything that’s been going on with the continuing political prosecutions of Austin police officers who are out simply doing their job and doing the job the way that we’re trained to do their job,” said an APROA representative.
Garza’s tenure as district attorney has been marked by controversy since his election in 2020. His campaign, which received financial backing from liberal megadonor George Soros, pledged to hold police officers accountable for misconduct. Since taking office, he has indicted more than 20 police officers related to the 2020 protests, including Bretches. However, critics argue his office has been overzealous in targeting law enforcement while being too lenient with other criminal defendants.
Robert Leonard, executive director of CLEAT, condemned Garza’s alleged actions: “There can be no worse violation of the oath taken by a District Attorney than to intentionally deny a defendant a fair trial. It is a direct violation of their Constitutional rights.”
O’Connell has also filed a motion for a court of inquiry, requesting a district judge investigate whether Garza committed criminal offenses through his actions. This utilizes what O’Connell described as an “obscure provision in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure” that allows a judge to determine if laws have been violated.
When contacted for comment, Garza’s office declined to address the specific allegations, stating: “We are not going to litigate this case in the press.” They added that they remain prepared to try the case in June as previously scheduled, saying, “Justice delayed is justice denied, and four years is too long to wait. It is time for the community to weigh in on whether they believe that the defendant’s actions violated the law.”
The case highlights ongoing tensions between progressive prosecutors and law enforcement agencies across the country, particularly regarding the handling of cases stemming from the 2020 civil unrest following George Floyd’s death. The outcome could have significant implications for police accountability measures and prosecutorial disclosure requirements in Texas and beyond.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
The allegations of secret meetings and withholding evidence are serious. Prosecutors must uphold the highest standards of ethics and transparency, even in controversial cases.
The alleged secret meetings are concerning and raise questions about potential misconduct. However, we should withhold judgment until the full facts are presented and the legal process runs its course.
I agree, it’s important to avoid rushing to conclusions and let the justice system do its job.
The use of less-lethal munitions during protests is a complex and contentious issue. I hope this investigation can shed light on the policies and procedures governing their deployment and use.
This is a sensitive issue that touches on important issues of accountability and the use of force by authorities. I hope a fair and impartial investigation can shed light on what happened and lead to a just outcome.
While the calls for the DA’s resignation are understandable given the seriousness of the allegations, I would caution against prejudging the situation. Let’s wait for the full facts to emerge before drawing conclusions.
This case underscores the need for clear communication and trust between law enforcement, prosecutors, and the community they serve. Rebuilding that trust will be crucial going forward.
This case highlights the complex dynamics between law enforcement, prosecutors, and the public. While transparency is crucial, it’s important to allow due process to play out and ensure all evidence is properly considered.