A high-profile criminal case stemming from the 2020 George Floyd riots in Austin, Texas, has escalated into a sweeping challenge to the integrity of the local justice system, with major law enforcement organizations now demanding the resignation of progressive, Soros-backed District Attorney Jos Garza over allegations of political prosecutions, suppressed evidence, and potential criminal misconduct.
According to Fox News, the controversy centers on Austin Police Department officer Chance Bretches, who faces a felony charge of aggravated assault by a public servant for his role in crowd-control operations during the 2020 unrest in downtown Austin.
Attorneys for Bretches have filed a motion in Travis County district court seeking dismissal of the case, asserting that prosecutors in Garzas office violated the officers constitutional rights by failing to disclose critical information and by allegedly coordinating behind closed doors with city officials about whether Austin itself, or its police leadership, should face criminal liability for injuries sustained by protesters.
Bretches was deployed as part of the police response when demonstrations over the death of George Floyd devolved into violent riots, and officers were ordered to restore order in the citys core.
His defense maintains that he relied on department-issued less-lethal beanbag rounds, later criticized for causing more severe injuries than intended, and argues that any harm resulted from defective equipment rather than criminal conduct by officers following their training and directives.
The defense motion alleges that prosecutors concealed "secret meetings" with Austin officials in which the citys potential responsibility for the defective beanbag munitions was discussed, including the possibility that the municipality or its leadership bore "criminal culpability" for the injuries at issue. Those undisclosed discussions, Bretchess attorney contends, were precisely the kind of material the prosecution was "required to give us" because they pointed to an alternative suspect and undermined the theory that individual officers alone were to blame.
The claim of "secret meetings" is grounded in two sworn declarations submitted to the court, one from a former Austin city manager and another from a former city council member. The former city manager states he personally met multiple times with Garza and his prosecutors in 2023 to discuss potential criminal charges against the city as a corporate entity, while the former council member attests she was aware of internal communications indicating the DAs office was actively considering such charges.
"Prosecutors can hold meetings with anybody, theres nothing illegal about that," defense attorney Doug OConnell told Fox News Digital, acknowledging that discussions with city officials, in themselves, are not improper. "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 once Garza entertained the possibility of indicting the city, he triggered his obligations under the landmark Supreme Court decision Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to disclose 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, insisting that the DAs internal assessment of the citys liability was itself favorable to Bretches and therefore had to be turned over.
"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, passed in Texas after a notorious wrongful conviction, mandates broad disclosure by prosecutors, including evidence that could mitigate guilt or punishment, and was designed precisely to prevent politically driven or secretive prosecutions.
OConnell emphasizes that the statute requires that "exculpatory mitigating evidence" be provided to the defense without gamesmanship or delay. "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, underscoring how seriously Austin officials apparently took the threat of prosecution.
"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." In either scenario, OConnell contends, Garzas conduct would be incompatible with the ethical and legal duties of a prosecutor, raising the specter of abuse of power in pursuit of a political agenda against law enforcement.
The fallout has been swift among law enforcement circles, where Garza has long been viewed as hostile to police and overly lenient toward criminal offenders. Two of the regions most prominent police organizations, the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT) and the Austin Police Retired Officers Association (APROA), have now publicly called for Garza to resign as Travis Countys top prosecutor, citing the latest allegations as proof that his office cannot be trusted to administer justice fairly.
"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," APROA representative Dennis Farris told Fox News Digital, explaining why his group issued its first-ever formal letter demanding Garzas resignation. For years, rank-and-file officers and retirees have accused the DA of criminalizing split-second decisions made in chaotic situations, while failing to prioritize the prosecution of violent criminals who threaten public safety.
Garza has also drawn sustained criticism from families of crime victims, who argue that his progressive approach to prosecution has too often favored offenders over the rights of victims and their communities. "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, reflecting a broader sentiment among conservatives that Soros-aligned prosecutors are undermining law and order in major cities.
After winning office on a campaign heavily backed by liberal megadonor George Soros and explicitly promising to prosecute police officers, Garza moved quickly to fulfill that pledge. He indicted more than 20 officers, including Bretches, for their actions during the Black Lives Matter riots, and has pursued multiple other cases involving alleged excessive or deadly force, yet has secured only a single convictionone that was later overturned on appeal.
"There can be no worse violation of the oath taken by a District Attorney than to intentionally deny a defendant a fair trial," CLEAT executive director Robert Leonard said in response to the latest motion, framing the alleged misconduct as a direct assault on the rule of law. "It is a direct violation of their Constitutional rights."
In a further escalation, OConnell has filed a separate motion requesting a court of inquiry, a rarely used mechanism in Texas law that can trigger an independent judicial investigation into potential criminal conduct by public officials. The motion asks a district judge to determine whether Garzas actionsparticularly the alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and the purported threats against the cityrise to the level of criminal offenses.
OConnell described the move as invoking 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 local media outlets and legal commentators have questioned whether the court of inquiry motion will ultimately succeed, OConnell insists he remains confident that a judge will at least grant a public hearing. He suggested that such a hearing could be scheduled as early as April 7, a date already on the courts calendar in connection with Bretchess case, potentially turning a routine appearance into a high-stakes examination of the DAs conduct.
Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to Garzas office for comment on the allegations and the growing calls for his resignation.
In response, the DAs office declined to address the specifics of the motion or the sworn declarations, instead issuing a brief statement to local media signaling its intention to press ahead with the prosecution.
"We are not going to litigate this case in the press," Garzas 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."
The standoff now pits a Soros-backed prosecutor, elected on a platform of aggressively targeting police, against a coalition of current and former officers who argue that his office has weaponized the justice system for ideological ends. At stake is not only the fate of Officer Bretches, who maintains he followed his training with equipment provided by the city, but also the broader question of whether progressive prosecutors can be trusted to fairly balance accountability with the rights of those who wear the badge.
If a court of inquiry is granted, it could expose internal deliberations within the DAs office and city hall, shedding light on whether threats of indictment against the city were grounded in evidence or used as leverage in a politically charged environment. For many conservatives and law enforcement advocates, the case has become a test of whether Texas will enforce its own safeguardslike the Michael Morton Act and Brady obligationsagainst a prosecutor they see as emblematic of a national trend that prioritizes ideology over impartial justice.
Login