Secret meetings alleged between Travis County DA and Austin officials in motion to dismiss APD officer protest case
AUSTIN — Attorneys representing an Austin police officer charged in connection with the city’s 2020 protests are asking a judge to dismiss the case, alleging Travis County prosecutors held secret meetings with city officials and concealed evidence that could have helped his defense.
Attorneys for Officer Chance Bretches filed a motion in Travis County district court arguing that the District Attorney’s Office violated constitutional due process requirements by failing to disclose negotiations with the city of Austin over potential criminal liability tied to police actions during the protests. Doug O’Connell is one of Bretches’ attorneys and called the situation “hugely concerning.”
“If that’s the case, we had an absolute right to be told about it,” O’Connell said. “The district attorney has had three years to produce this evidence, and instead of producing it, he hid it, and that’s absolutely illegal.”
KXAN reached out to the DA’s office about the allegations outlined in the motion to dismiss and will update this story once a response is received.
The motion claims the undisclosed discussions show prosecutors themselves believed the city — not individual officers — may have been criminally responsible for the use of allegedly defective “less-lethal” ammunition during the unrest.
Bretches was indicted in 2022 on two counts of aggravated assault by a public servant related to his use of beanbag rounds during demonstrations outside Austin Police Department headquarters on May 31, 2020. A subsequent indictment in 2024 added additional counts, including deadly conduct and assault.
The officer’s attorneys argue that throughout the case, prosecutors certified they had turned over all required evidence, even though defense lawyers say key information about negotiations with city officials was never disclosed.
“The District Attorney’s Office has once again illegally suppressed exculpatory and mitigating evidence,” the motion states, asking the court to dismiss the indictments with prejudice.
Allegations of secret negotiations
The motion centers on two unsworn declarations from former Austin officials who say private meetings occurred between the district attorney and city leadership in 2023 to discuss possible criminal charges against the city related to the protests.
Former Austin Assistant City Manager Bruce Mills said in a declaration that he met with District Attorney JosΓ© Garza and members of his office at least three times, beginning in March 2023, to discuss the city’s potential criminal liability for the police response.
According to Mills, Garza indicated during the first meeting that he intended to indict the city over the police department’s actions during the protests.
Mills said the city then retained a criminal defense attorney and entered discussions with prosecutors about how to avoid an indictment. The negotiations included proposals that could have resulted in charges against individual officers being dismissed if the city took some form of accountability for the events, the filing states.
KXAN reached out to Mills for comment, and he said he did not want to comment at this time.
The motion claims the talks ultimately stalled after prosecutors realized the statute of limitations had expired for potential charges against the city.
Defense attorneys argue the existence of those negotiations should have been disclosed because it supported their theory that responsibility for the use of the munitions lay with police leadership or the city, rather than individual officers. O’Connell added that with the now known knowledge of these meetings, he has no idea how that could’ve change how the attorneys defended the case.
“Once we get information, we have a duty to investigate it. To start pulling on threads to do our own investigation,” O’Connell said. “We’ll probably never know the answer to that question because the information wasn’t provided to us.”
Charlie Baird, owner of the Baird Law Firm and a retired Travis County District Court judge, said that under Brady’s Rule, prosecutors must disclose any evidence that could show the defendant is not guilty, undermine the credibility of a state’s witness, or lessen the potential punishment.
“Sometimes the state will say this is work product and work product is not required to be disclosed. And as a general rule, that may be true,” Baird said. “But if the work product produces evidence that is exculpatory or that is impeaching or that would mitigate punishment, then it takes it out of the work product, exception and makes it part of Brady—and so it must be disclosed.”
Claims of hidden evidence
The defense contends prosecutors had a legal obligation to disclose the negotiations under constitutional due process requirements and Texas discovery law.
The filing says the information could have helped establish an “alternative suspect” theory — that the city and police leadership were responsible for the decisions that led to officers using the equipment.
Instead, the motion alleges, prosecutors kept the negotiations secret from the defense and the public for years while pursuing criminal charges against individual officers.
The motion also references a declaration from former Austin City Council Member Mackenzie Kelly stating she became aware of internal communications indicating the district attorney’s office was considering criminal exposure for the police department at an institutional level rather than solely for individual officers. KXAN reached out to Kelly for comment, and she said she did not want to comment at this time.
Broader misconduct claims
Bretches’ attorneys also argue the alleged conduct fits a broader pattern of prosecutorial misconduct by the Travis County District Attorney’s Office in other high-profile cases involving law enforcement.
The filing cites a prior court order sanctioning the office for failing to disclose evidence in the prosecution of two Williamson County deputies and references allegations by a homicide detective in the murder case against Army Sgt. Daniel Perry that exculpatory information was withheld from a grand jury.
Defense lawyers argue the alleged violations in Bretches’ case are so serious that dismissal is the only remedy that would ensure a fair trial.
The case is currently scheduled for trial June 1, 2026, in the 299th District Court in Travis County. Three additional officers continue to face charges related to the 2020 protests.
No comments:
Post a Comment