D.A.’s Office Responds to Misconduct Claims in 2020 Protest Case

With trial in the prosecution of APD Officer Chance Bretches just a couple of months away, the Travis County District Attorney’s Office is pushing back on claims it withheld key information, arguing in new court filings that the defense has not identified any undisclosed evidence or met the legal threshold required to halt the case.

In responses filed March 27, obtained by the Chronicle via Public Information Request, the state rejected the defense’s central allegation that meetings between prosecutors and the city of Austin amounted to withheld, favorable information. Instead, prosecutors argue “there is nothing in Defendant’s pleadings or exhibits to indicate that any evidence or information came into the State’s exclusive possession during any of the meetings that require disclosure.”

Without proving that the discussions produced favorable, material information that was not disclosed, prosecutors contend, there is no violation of Brady v. Maryland or Texas discovery law. At the center of the dispute is what counts as information prosecutors are required to turn over.

“The obligation on the state is not limited to evidence,” said Jennifer Laurin, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. “It is limited to information of a potentially favorable character.”

Still, Laurin noted that not everything connected to a case falls within that obligation. Purely internal deliberations – such as how prosecutors weigh charges or assess liability – is generally not required to be disclosed.

The state’s filings draw that same distinction, arguing that the meetings cited by the defense were part of internal prosecutorial decision-making and do not constitute as evidence subject to disclosure.

Those responses follow earlier motions from Bretches’ attorneys, who argued prosecutors “suppressed favorable evidence” tied to 2023 discussions with city officials over potential liability stemming from the 2020 protests.

To establish a constitutional violation, Laurin explained, a court would need to determine that favorable information was actually generated and not disclosed.

“The court would need to determine that there really was information of a favorable character that was generated” that had not already been conveyed to the defense, she said.

The state argues the defense has not made that showing. The filings contend that even if the meetings occurred, the defense has not identified any specific favorable information that was withheld.

And if a disclosure issue were found, the state argues that the defense has not demonstrated the level of misconduct required to justify ending the prosecution.

“The motion to dismiss is asking for the remedy of dismissal of the charges with prejudice,” Laurin said. “That is quite an extraordinary remedy.”

The state also opposes the defense’s request for a court of inquiry, arguing the filings do not establish probable cause that a criminal offense was committed by prosecutors – a requirement for such proceedings under Texas law.

Laurin mentioned that such requests are rare and require a separate legal showing beyond a discovery dispute. “To my knowledge, a court of inquiry for prosecutorial misconduct [in Texas] has happened a grand total of once,” she said, referring to the case involving former Williamson County District Judge Ken Anderson following the wrongful conviction of Michael Morton.

She also said the state’s response reflects standard legal arguments. “There’s nothing in the state’s response that strikes me as novel in terms of the representations that are being made about the law,” Laurin said.

The case is currently set for trial June 1. 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.

The post D.A.’s Office Responds to Misconduct Claims in 2020 Protest Case appeared first on The Austin Chronicle.