A criminal case stemming from the 2020 George Floyd protests in Austin, Texas, has sparked a larger uproar, with major law enforcement agencies calling for the resignation of a district attorney backed by George Soros. The accusations include misconduct, political maneuvering, and hiding essential evidence.
The attorney representing Austin Police Officer Chance Brechess filed a motion arguing that the Travis County District Court should dismiss charges against him. He claims that the DA violated the officer’s constitutional rights by not revealing key communications with Austin officials regarding potential charges against the city and police for injuries inflicted on protesters.
Brechess faces charges of aggravated assault by a public servant after officers were deployed during the protests to regain order. His legal team maintains that he used “less-lethal” bean bag rounds, which later became a point of contention, as they allege the device was faulty and contributed to the injuries of the protesters.
The attorneys argue that the undisclosed discussions with Austin officials, who may be liable for the defective bean bag rounds that caused excessive harm, were critical and should have been shared with the defense. This, they contend, suggests possible criminal accountability on the city’s part.
The motion cites sworn statements. One comes from a former city manager who claimed to have discussed potential charges against the city confidentially with Garza and his team multiple times in 2023. A former city council member also indicated that he was aware of internal communications regarding these potential charges.
“Prosecutors can meet with anyone they wish; that’s not illegal,” commented Brechess’ attorney Doug O’Connell. “But the district attorney seemed to believe he had enough evidence to indict the city, which complicates the case.”
O’Connell also pointed out that Garza didn’t fulfill the Brady v. Maryland requirement to present exculpatory evidence to the defense. He argued that the failure to indict the city while initially believing he had sufficient evidence for it is a breach of this requirement.
The Michael Morton Law mandates Texas prosecutors to share most evidence with the defense, aiming to prevent wrongful convictions. O’Connell stressed that the prosecution must provide evidence that could mitigate the defendant’s guilt.
“They clearly didn’t share evidence supporting a potential indictment against the city, leading to its own legal representation,” he added. “So one of two things seems true: Either they had the evidence and didn’t show it to us, or they threatened the city without grounds. Either scenario poses serious issues.”
Two influential police organizations, the Association of Law Enforcement Alliances of Texas (CLEAT) and the Austin Police Retired Officers Association (APROA), responded to the motion by urging Garza to step down, citing ongoing political prosecution of officers simply doing their jobs.
“This really feels like the last straw,” said a representative from APROA, highlighting Garza’s long-standing conflicts with local law enforcement. “His focus has been on targeting police officers, and now it seems there’s more to uncover about his actions.”
After winning the election with support from Soros and promising to pursue police officers, Garza initiated indictments for over 20 officers, including Brechess. He also attempted to indict others for manslaughter related to force use, though only one of those convictions was ultimately overturned.
“There’s nothing worse than a district attorney effectively denying a defendant a fair trial,” remarked CLEAT’s Executive Director. “This represents a clear violation of constitutional rights.”
Moreover, O’Connell filed a motion requesting a court inquiry to determine if Garza had committed crimes through his actions.
“A court can investigate whether the prosecutor or senior police personnel have engaged in public oppression or evidence tampering,” O’Connell explained.
Recently, local media raised questions about Garza’s actions. O’Connell expressed optimism that they’d see progress on the motion at a scheduled court date soon.
Garza’s office has stated that they do not wish to discuss the case in public, affirming their readiness to go to trial, which is set for June. They emphasized that any delay in proceedings equates to justice denied, highlighting the lengthy wait of four years for resolution.
