NEWYou can now listen to articles!
A criminal case tied to the 2020 Austin, Texas, George Floyd riots is erupting into a broader controversy, with prominent law enforcement groups calling for the Soros-backed district attorney to resign over accusations of misconduct, political coordination, and withholding key evidence.
Attorneys for Austin Police Department officer Chance Bretches filed a motion in Travis County district court to dismiss the case against him, alleging prosecutors in DA Jose Garza’s office violated the officer’s constitutional rights and compromised the integrity of the case by not disclosing alleged behind-the-scenes communications with Austin officials about potentially holding the city or police leadership criminally responsible for harming injured protesters.
Bretches is facing charges of aggravated assault by a public servant after being deployed as part of a crowd-control response during the 2020 riot, where officers worked to disperse demonstrators and restore order in downtown Austin. His attorneys argue he relied on department-issued “less-lethal” beanbag rounds that were later called into question, contending the equipment itself was defective and contributed to the injuries at issue.
The alleged “secret meetings” with Austin officials about the city being responsible for the defective beanbag rounds that caused more harm than they were designed for, Bretches’s attorney says, were something the prosecution was “required to give us” because it showed the belief and possibility the city had “criminal culpability” in the case.
TRAVIS COUNTY DA FACES RENEWED ‘SOFT ON CRIME’ CRITICISM AFTER CAREER CRIMINAL CHARGED WITH MURDER
Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza poses in front of the Austin skyline in a portrait from the county website. (Travis County DA Website)
The motion bases its claim of “secret meetings” on two sworn declarations: one from a former Austin city manager, who says he personally met multiple times with Garza and prosecutors in 2023 to discuss potential charges against the city, and another from a former city council member, who says she was aware of internal communications indicating the DA’s office was considering such charge.
“Prosecutors can hold meetings with anybody, there’s nothing illegal about that,” Bretches’ attorney Doug O’Connell told 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.”
O’Connell argues that Garza triggered disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense.
“If you follow that logic, then the basis of his indictment of the city, which never materialized, is, in fact, Brady,” O’Connell said. “Even if he thought he had enough evidence and later determined he didn’t, it’s still Brady. It’s a violation of the Michael Morton Act, a violation of the court’s order, and the defendant’s constitutional rights.”
SOROS-BACKED ‘ANTI-POLICE’ DA SPARKS OUTRAGE AFTER SHOWING UP TO FALLEN OFFICER FUNERAL: ‘SLAP IN THE FACE’
Demonstrators face members of the Austin Police Department as they gather in downtown Austin, Texas, on June 4, 2020, to protest the death of George Floyd. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
The Michael Morton Act, a Texas law enacted after a wrongful conviction case, requires prosecutors to turn over most evidence in their possession to the defense, including information that could be favorable to the accused.
O’Connell says that the law mandates that “exculpatory mitigating evidence” must be given to the defense.
“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. “So one of two things is true, either he had the evidence and he didn’t produce it to us, or he didn’t have any basis to indict the city, and he was just threatening them, and that would be official oppression anyway.”
Two of the most recognized police organizations in the area, Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT) and the Austin Police Retired Officers Association (APROA), reacted to the motion by calling on Garza, who has long been accused of harboring animosity toward police, to resign from his role as the county’s top prosecutor.
“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,” Farris told Digital about the APROA’s official letter calling for Garza to step down, the first time they have done so despite intense criticism of Garza over the years.
Garza has faced public blowback from his critics for years over his treatment of police officers and from families of crime victims who have spoken out against what they view as a lack of willingness to put criminal offenders behind bars.
“His focus has been on the cops and now we’re finding out that he did some shady stuff and it’s time for him to go,” Farris said.
After winning an election following a campaign, backed by liberal megadonor George Soros, that pledged to prosecute police officers, Garza indicted over 20 police officers, including Bretches, for their role in quelling the Black Lives Matter riot. Garza has attempted to prosecute multiple other officers on deadly force-related charges with only one successful conviction that was later overturned.
“There can be no worse violation of the oath taken by a District Attorney than to intentionally deny a defendant a fair trial,” Robert Leonard, CLEAT executive director, said about the motion. “It is a direct violation of their Constitutional rights.”
Additionally, O’Connell filed a motion requesting a court of inquiry calling on a district judge to investigate if Garza committed a crime through his actions.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE APP
The shore of Lady Bird Lake in Austin, Texas. (Jay Janner/American-Statesman/USA TODAY NETWORK)
O’Connell described the move as utilizing an “obscure provision in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that allows a district court judge to hold a hearing to determine if the law has been violated.”
“In this case, it would be a hearing to determine if the elected DA and top lieutenants committed an offense of official oppression and tampering with evidence by not producing the mitigating or exculpatory evidence in this case.”
While some in local media have cast doubt on the likelihood of the motion being successful, O’Connell says he is optimistic that he will be granted a hearing on his motion, possibly on a previously scheduled court date on April 7.
Digital reached out to Garza’s office for comment.
“We are not going to litigate this case in the press,” Garza’s office said in a statement this week to local media vowing to carry on with their case.
“We remain ready to try this case and expect to start the trial in June as previously agreed with the defense. 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.”
