Travis County DA's Office responds to allegations of 'secret negotiations'

Travis Co. DA responds to 'secret negotiation' allegations

A new court filing is pushing back on claims the Travis County District Attorney’s Office held secret negotiations that could impact a case involving an Austin police officer indicted after the 2020 protests.

AUSTIN, Texas - A new court filing is pushing back on claims the Travis County District Attorney’s Office held secret negotiations that could impact a case involving an Austin police officer indicted after the 2020 protests.

Austin police officer Chance Bretches is facing multiple felonies related to his use of force during the 2020 George Floyd protests. His case has been set to go to trial seven times but still hasn’t.

Featured

article

2020 Austin protests: Attorneys want case against officer dismissed

The attorneys for an Austin police officer facing multiple indictments for his response to the 2020 protests in Austin have filed a motion to have the case dismissed.

The backstory:

Nearly six years after protesters filled the streets in downtown Austin, the legal battle over what happened continues.

Officer Bretches, one of four Austin police officers still under indictment, is accused of shooting a medic with a less-lethal round, leaving her with part of her finger amputated.

Bretches’ attorneys argue he shouldn’t face trial because he followed orders, acted under supervision, and used equipment provided by the department. Now his attorneys are asking for a judge to dismiss the case. 

PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Defense attorney wants APD officer's case dismissed

Defense attorney Doug O'Connell claims the Travis County DA's Office is in violation of the law, and is asking a judge to dismiss the case.

A recent court filing argues the Travis County District Attorney’s Office illegally withheld evidence, specifically, having discussion with a former Austin assistant city manager about potentially indicting the City of Austin instead of individual officers.

The District Attorney’s Office has since responded, saying they did nothing wrong. They don’t deny the meetings happened, they said they were part of standard prosecutorial decision-making.

Prosecutors said the discussions didn’t result in any offers of immunity, leniency, or payment to witnesses. They also argue those conversations weren’t required to be turned over to the defense, calling them internal work product and part of their discretion. They said the information wouldn’t impact the case.

What's next:

A judge is expected to rule on these motions at the next hearing on May 4.