A criminal case tied to the 2020 , 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 Garzas office violated the officers 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.Â
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, Bretchess 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.
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 DAs office was considering such charge.
“Prosecutors can hold meetings with anybody, theres nothing illegal about that,” Bretches attorney Doug OConnell told Fox News 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.”
OConnell 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,” OConnell said. “Even if he thought he had enough evidence and later determined he didnt, its still Brady. Its a violation of the Michael Morton Act, a violation of the courts order, and the defendants constitutional rights.”
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.
OConnell 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,” OConnell said. “So one of two things is true, either he had the evidence and he didn’t produce it to us, or he didnt 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 co
