Listen to the article
A Texas career criminal has been charged with murder in a case that has intensified scrutiny of Travis County District Attorney José Garza and his prosecutorial approach, which critics characterize as excessively lenient toward violent offenders.
Caleb Anthony Jenkins faces murder charges for allegedly shooting a 25-year-old father of five outside an Austin 7-Eleven last year before fleeing the scene. Law enforcement officials have described Jenkins as a career criminal with a history of run-ins with the legal system.
Critics argue the homicide might have been prevented had Garza’s office handled Jenkins’ previous cases differently. Court records show Garza’s office dismissed or declined to prosecute three separate gun charges against Jenkins in incidents dating back to 2022. Jenkins was also arrested in 2023 on domestic violence charges and subsequently failed to appear in court. More recently, he was re-arrested and released after authorities increased his bond amount.
The case has become a flashpoint in ongoing criticism of Garza, who was elected Travis County District Attorney in 2020 despite having no prior prosecutorial experience. Garza’s campaign received substantial financial backing from liberal megadonor George Soros, with campaign finance records showing Soros contributed $652,000 to the Texas Justice & Public Safety PAC in the months leading up to the 2020 election. That PAC reportedly spent almost $1 million on advertising to support Garza’s candidacy.
Since taking office, Garza has faced mounting criticism from police advocacy groups and victims’ families who accuse him of deliberately slow-walking certain cases while pursuing an agenda of lenient sentencing policies.
One high-profile example involves the family of Doug Cantor, a 25-year-old victim of the 2021 Sixth Street mass shooting in downtown Austin. Family members have publicly criticized Garza for allegedly putting the case on the “back burner,” with Cantor’s brother Nick telling media outlets, “He’s doing things that are clearly causing distress on the trial and on the overall outcome of the case and for getting justice for my brother.”
Dennis Farris, president of the Austin Police Retired Officer’s Association, has been particularly vocal about Garza’s approach, stating it “appears that Garza has now become more of an advocate for the criminal than he has for the victim.” Farris further criticized the district attorney’s office, saying, “The prosecution is acting more like defense attorneys than they are prosecutors.”
Law enforcement officials have also expressed concern about what they perceive as Garza’s antagonistic stance toward police. Current and former local officers have criticized what they describe as Garza’s “war on cops,” pointing to his campaign promises to indict police officers and “reimagine” policing in Austin.
While overall reported crime in Travis County has declined during Garza’s tenure, critics maintain that his office’s high dismissal rates reflect political motivations rather than public safety concerns. They argue that his approach to criminal justice reform has prioritized defendants’ interests at the expense of victims.
“Whatever his skewed view of what criminal justice reform is, it isn’t working. It sure isn’t working for the victims,” Farris noted in an interview approximately one year after Garza took office. He added that victims’ families feel re-victimized by the district attorney’s approach to plea bargains, which allegedly excludes them from the decision-making process.
The debate over Garza’s prosecutorial philosophy reflects broader national tensions regarding criminal justice reform, particularly in jurisdictions where progressive prosecutors have been elected with support from advocacy groups and donors like Soros. These prosecutors typically aim to reduce incarceration rates, reform bail practices, and address racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
Fox News Digital reported that the Travis County District Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests for comment on the Jenkins case or the broader criticisms of Garza’s prosecutorial approach.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
The dismissal or non-prosecution of prior gun charges is certainly troubling if true. However, we should withhold final conclusions until all the facts are known and the full context is understood.
A fair point. The public deserves a thorough and transparent investigation to understand the reasoning behind the prior decisions.
The details provided raise legitimate questions about the prosecution’s decision-making and the defendant’s criminal history. I hope a thorough investigation can shed light on the nuances and complexities involved.
Agreed. A measured, fact-based approach is essential to understand the full context and determine the appropriate course of action going forward.
The details presented raise valid questions about the prosecution’s handling of this case and the defendant’s prior criminal history. A thorough, objective investigation is warranted to determine the appropriate next steps.
Agreed. Navigating the balance between public safety, due process, and rehabilitation is an ongoing challenge that demands nuanced, evidence-based approaches.
As an outsider, it’s difficult to assess the merits of this specific case. However, the overall concerns about public safety and the integrity of the justice system are valid and warrant serious consideration.
Well said. These are important issues that deserve thoughtful analysis, not knee-jerk reactions, to ensure the best outcomes for all.
This is a troubling case that deserves close scrutiny. While the specifics are still emerging, the overarching concerns about public safety and the integrity of the justice system are understandable and worthy of further examination.
Well put. These are sensitive issues that require careful consideration and a commitment to transparency and accountability from all stakeholders.
A tragic case that highlights the complex challenges facing our criminal justice system. While we should avoid rushing to judgment, the details are certainly concerning and warrant careful examination of the prosecution’s approach and the defendant’s history.
Agreed, this is a complex issue without easy solutions. Public safety must be balanced with fair and equitable treatment under the law.
This case highlights the ongoing debate around criminal justice reform and the appropriate balance between rehabilitation and accountability. Reasonable people can disagree on the best approach.
Indeed, these are challenging issues without simple solutions. Open and nuanced discussion is crucial as we strive to improve the system.