D.A.’s Office Accused of Withholding Key Evidence in 2020 Protest Case

A defense attorney attempting to get a criminal case against an Austin police officer dismissed is now asking a judge to take a step further: examine whether the prosecutors who brought the case violated the law.

APD Officer Chance Bretches was indicted in 2022 on charges of aggravated assault with serious bodily injury by a public servant and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon by a public servant due to his use of less-lethal “bean bag” ammunition against protesters during the May 31, 2020, demonstrations outside the Austin Police Department headquarters. A subsequent indictment added additional counts, including deadly conduct and assault.

Bretches’ attorney Doug O’Connell has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, alleging District Attorney José Garza’s office failed to disclose key information that could have supported his defense. The defense also asks the court to initiate a court of inquiry, a rarely used process that allows a judge to investigate whether a public official may have committed a criminal offense. The defense alleges prosecutors held 2023 meetings with city officials about whether the city of Austin itself could face charges tied to police actions during the 2020 protests.

The defense argues that information should have been disclosed because it supports their theory that responsibility for what occurred may extend beyond individual officers to broader decisions about training, supervision, and equipment. Instead, the motion alleges, that information was withheld.

“For three years, the District Attorney’s Office has hidden evidence that they intended to indict the City of Austin,” the filing states, alleging prosecutors conducted “secret negotiations with the City” while failing to disclose them to the defense.

The motion frames that alleged nondisclosure as a violation of due process, citing prosecutors’ obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland. Under those standards, prosecutors must turn over evidence that could help the defense, including information that points to another possible responsible party or undermines the state’s case.

Prosecutors have alleged that Bretches shot a volunteer medic during the protests, causing serious injury. His attorneys said he was a non-supervisory officer acting under direct supervision, following department training and using equipment issued by the city.

That distinction between individual action and broader responsibility has been central to the case from the beginning. The motion states that prosecutors were aware of the defense’s “alternative suspect” theory and cites affidavits describing discussions about the city of Austin’s potential criminal liability.

“Imagine the defendant’s shock,” the motion states, “on learning that … the District Attorney agree[d] with the defendant’s claim of an alternative suspect,” but did not disclose that information.

The filing further alleges that prosecutors in Garza’s office certified in 2025 that all discovery had been turned over, a representation the defense argues was inaccurate. “These were deliberate acts … with full knowledge that what they were doing was illegal and unethical,” the motion states.

The case is one of the few remaining prosecutions tied to APD actions during the 2020 protests. In 2023, Garza’s office dismissed charges against 17 of the 21 officers indicted in connection with the protests and requested a federal review of the Austin Police Department’s response.

The latest filing is part of a years-long clash between Garza and critics who argue his prosecution of officers is politically motivated. It is also not the first time that O’Connell has raised allegations of misconduct against the District Attorney’s Office, efforts that have seen mixed results.

“Our motion demands DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE – and lays out the DA’s [pattern] of misconduct towards law enforcement,” O’Connell wrote on X.

In some cases, courts have rejected similar claims. In 2021, a judge denied O’Connell’s request to dismiss charges against former Army Sergeant Daniel Perry, finding no “egregious” prosecutorial misconduct. Perry was later convicted of murder and subsequently pardoned by Gov. Greg Abbott.

In a statement sent to the Chronicle, a spokesperson with Garza’s office said, “We are not going to litigate this case in the press. 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 case is currently set for trial June 1, 2026, according to court filings. It is unclear when District Judge Karen Sage could rule on the motion or whether the request for a court of inquiry will meet the legal threshold required to move forward.

For now, the filing has shifted the focus of one of Austin’s last remaining 2020 protest-related prosecutions. What began as a case about an officer’s actions has become a broader dispute over disclosure, accountability, and the role of prosecutors in one of the city’s most scrutinized sets of cases.

The post D.A.’s Office Accused of Withholding Key Evidence in 2020 Protest Case appeared first on The Austin Chronicle.