This piece examines the motion to dismiss in the criminal case tied to the 2020 Austin riots, the allegations that Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza withheld evidence and met privately with city officials, the legal claims invoking Brady and the Michael Morton Act, and the growing calls from major police groups demanding Garza’s resignation amid accusations of political prosecutions of officers.
A defense motion filed on behalf of Austin Police Officer Chance Bretches accuses prosecutors of concealing communications and potential coordination with city officials that could point to the city’s liability over allegedly defective crowd-control equipment. The defense argues those discussions would be exculpatory because they suggested the city itself might share criminal responsibility for injuries suffered during the 2020 unrest. That claim sits at the center of a bid to dismiss aggravated assault charges against Bretches tied to the use of less-lethal munitions. The case now raises questions about whether a district attorney’s political posture influenced prosecutorial decisions.
The filing relies on sworn statements from a former city manager and a former council member alleging meetings with the DA’s office where the idea of indicting the city was discussed. If true, the defense says those talks triggered disclosure duties under Brady v. Maryland and under Texas’s Michael Morton Act, which demands prosecutors hand over evidence favorable to defendants. The defense frames the missing material as potentially decisive, arguing the city’s own worries — including hiring criminal defense counsel — show the prosecution’s thinking mattered.
Doug O’Connell, Bretches’ attorney, has been blunt about the defense theory. “Prosecutors can hold meetings with anybody, there’s nothing illegal about that,” he said. He then explained why the hidden conversations would matter to a defendant trying to prove a fair process was denied. His argument presses that even a prosecutor’s belief in a theory, if not turned into produced evidence, can still be Brady material if it bears on guilt or innocence.
O’Connell elaborated the legal framework in pointed terms. “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.” Those are serious claims that, if proven, describe more than garden-variety discovery disputes.
The defense did not stop at a dismissal motion. It also requested a court of inquiry to ask a judge to investigate whether Garza’s conduct crossed into official misconduct or tampering with evidence by withholding exculpatory material. This is a procedural move rarely used but blunt in its implications, signaling the defense wants judicial scrutiny of the prosecutor’s office itself. The petition frames the alleged failures as not merely tactical but potentially criminal in nature.
Police organizations in the region reacted promptly and angrily, framing the matter as part of a broader pattern of targeting officers. Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas and the Austin Police Retired Officers Association have both called on Garza to step down, saying the motion is the breaking point after years of perceived hostility toward law enforcement. APROA’s statement described years of politically driven prosecutions aimed at officers who say they were following training and orders.
“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,” a representative said about the APROA’s decision to publicly demand the DA resign. That sentiment captures a lot of the anger in police ranks, where many feel prosecutorial zeal has outpaced fairness and basic process. For those organizations, the issue is accountability from prosecutors as much as from officers.
Robert Leonard of CLEAT made the constitutional stakes explicit. “There can be no worse violation of the oath taken by a District Attorney than to intentionally deny a defendant a fair trial,” he said. “It is a direct violation of their Constitutional rights.” That language underscores how the dispute has moved from a fact-driven debate over a use-of-force incident to one about the fundamentals of due process and prosecutorial duty.
The backdrop gives the dispute extra political heat: Garza campaigned on reforms backed by liberal donors and has pursued charges against more than 20 officers tied to the 2020 protests. Critics on the right cast his agenda as politically motivated and driven by outside funding. Supporters say he is pursuing accountability; opponents argue that pursuing officers while concealing key prosecutorial thinking flips the script on justice and weaponizes the criminal system against law enforcement.
The DA’s office responded to requests for comment by refusing to try the case in public and by signaling readiness to proceed at trial. “We are not going to litigate this case in the press,” Garza’s office said. “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.” Those lines close the public argument for now and set the stage for courtroom battles over both evidence and responsibility.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.