The attorney for an Austin police officer filed a motion this week accusing Travis County District Attorney José Garza of misconduct allegations.
AUSTIN, Texas — The attorney for an Austin police officer filed a motion this week accusing Travis County District Attorney José Garza of misconduct allegations that ricocheted across social media.
But experts say a deeper examination of the issues reveals anything but a legal slam dunk.
KVUE Senior Reporter Tony Plohetski joined KVUE Anchor Quita Culpepper to break down the key issues in the motion.
Culpepper: “Tony, tell us more about these allegations. They relate to the 2020 Black Lives Matter protest, right?”
Plohetski: “That’s right. And Quita, people will of course remember that following that in the first year of the first term of the district attorney (Garza), he brought charges against 19 police officers who, he said, used excessive force. Most of those cases, the vast majority were dropped in Dec. 2023 when the district attorney asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate what happened that day. The DOJ never took up that investigation. There’s still a handful, about four cases against police officers who are remaining. So, Quita this entire controversy is centered on one particular officer who’s set for trial in June.”
Culpepper: “So what are the key issues around all of this?”
Plohetski: “So what a new motion from the attorney for that officer alleges is that the district attorney’s office and top city of Austin officials met he says secretly in 2023 to discuss whether or not the city itself as an entity could possibly face charges for their actions during the protest. And specifically whether or not they provided faulty ammunition that could cause greater injuries. That is what the attorney is alleging happened and he says that information was not handed to him as required by both federal rule and state law. But Quita when we break that down with other experts who work in this arena, they say that there’s really an open question as to whether or not the district attorney’s office did anything wrong and having those meetings and there’s a question, frankly, about whether or not they would have been required to report that they have those meetings with this particular attorney. But, again, a really big open question at this point.”
Culpepper: “Open question indeed. What could happen with this, in the next few weeks?”
Plohetski: “Well, what is likely to happen is the judge in this case, state district judge Karen Sage, could have a hearing in coming days and weeks. Whether or not that hearing includes testimony, live testimony, from anybody within the district attorney’s office who may have knowledge of this whether or not as a result of those meetings, records and documents that were not handed to the attorney. If, for example, that were to be the case that would be a particular issue for the district attorney’s office. But Quita, it’s really, what experts say, it really needs to be more facts gathered and analyzed in the face of this controversy before the judge can make a ruling and the public can really determine and know whether or not something unfair or any sort of misconduct occurred in this arena.”