Soros-backed Austin DA faces resignation calls over alleged ‘secret meetings’ in case against cop

A criminal prosecution connected to the 2020 riots in Austin, Texas, following the death of George Floyd is now expanding into a wider controversy, as major law enforcement organizations are urging the county’s district attorney to resign amid accusations of misconduct, political coordination, and failure to disclose critical evidence.

Lawyers representing Austin Police Department officer Chance Bretches have filed a motion in Travis County district court seeking to have the case against him dismissed. The filing argues that prosecutors working under District Attorney Jose Garza violated Bretches’ constitutional rights and undermined the case by failing to disclose alleged private communications with Austin city officials regarding the possibility of charging the city or police leadership for injuries suffered by protesters.

Bretches has been charged with aggravated assault by a public servant for actions taken while deployed during the 2020 unrest. Police were attempting to disperse crowds and regain control of downtown Austin at the time. His defense team says he relied on department-issued “less-lethal” beanbag rounds during the operation, but later questions arose about whether the equipment itself was defective and responsible for some of the injuries reported.

According to the defense, the prosecution held undisclosed meetings with city officials to discuss whether Austin could face criminal liability over the allegedly faulty beanbag rounds. Bretches’ attorney argues that any such discussions should have been shared with the defense because they suggested the city itself might bear responsibility.

The claim about the undisclosed meetings is based on sworn statements from two former city officials. A former Austin city manager said he met with Garza and members of the district attorney’s office several times in 2023 to discuss potential charges against the city. A former city council member also stated she was aware of internal communications indicating the DA’s office had considered pursuing those charges.

Bretches’ attorney, Doug O’Connell, said prosecutors are free to meet with outside parties, but the issue is whether those discussions created an alternative suspect or potential co-defendant in the case.

O’Connell contends that Garza’s office had an obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose any information that could be favorable to the defense. That legal precedent requires prosecutors to turn over evidence that might help the accused.

He also pointed to the Michael Morton Act, a Texas law requiring prosecutors to share most evidence in their possession with the defense, including information that could reduce a defendant’s liability or support their case.

O’Connell argues that if the district attorney believed there was enough evidence to potentially charge the city, that information should have been turned over. He said the city’s concern about possible charges was serious enough that Austin hired its own criminal defense attorney.

According to O’Connell, the situation suggests one of two possibilities: either prosecutors possessed evidence supporting charges against the city but failed to provide it to the defense, or they lacked any real basis for those charges and used the threat of prosecution improperly.

The legal filing has drawn a strong reaction from law enforcement groups. Two prominent organizations, the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT) and the Austin Police Retired Officers Association (APROA), are now calling on Garza to step down.

APROA president Joe Farris said the organization believes the case represents a pattern of politically motivated prosecutions targeting Austin police officers who were performing their duties during the riots.

Garza has faced criticism for years from opponents who argue that his policies are hostile toward law enforcement and too lenient on criminal offenders. Some families of crime victims have also publicly expressed frustration, saying they believe the district attorney’s office has not been aggressive enough in prosecuting criminals.

Garza first won office after a campaign supported by liberal donor George Soros. During that campaign, he pledged to pursue cases against police officers involved in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. Since then, his office has indicted more than 20 officers tied to the response to the unrest, including Bretches. Garza has also pursued other cases involving police use of deadly force, but only one resulted in a conviction, which was later overturned.

Robert Leonard, executive director of CLEAT, said the allegations raised in Bretches’ motion are deeply troubling and strike at the core of a prosecutor’s responsibility to ensure a fair trial.

Along with the motion to dismiss, O’Connell also filed a request for what is known as a court of inquiry. This would allow a district judge to examine whether Garza or members of his office committed crimes related to the case.

O’Connell said the request relies on a little-used provision in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that permits a judge to hold a hearing to determine whether a law has been broken. In this instance, the inquiry would look into whether prosecutors committed official oppression or tampered with evidence by failing to disclose information that could help the defense.

Some local media outlets have questioned whether the motion will ultimately succeed. O’Connell, however, said he believes the court will at least grant a hearing on the matter, possibly during a scheduled court date on April 7.

Garza’s office declined to address the allegations directly in public comments. In a statement to local media, prosecutors said they would not argue the case through the press and remain prepared to proceed to trial.

The office said it expects the trial to begin in June as previously scheduled, noting that the case has already taken four years to reach that stage and that it is time for the community to determine whether Bretches’ actions violated the law.