September 07

Dallas Criminal Defense Attorney Clint Broden Files Pleadings - State of Texas v. Sgt. Daniel Perry

Pleadings filed today in State of Texas v. Sgt. Daniel Perry



Pleadings filed today in State of Texas v. Sgt. Daniel Perry

* * * * PRESS RELEASE * * * *

The following pleadings were filed today in the State of Texas v. Sgt. Daniel Perry by defense attorneys F. Clinton Broden, of Broden & Mickelsen, and Doug O’Connell:

1) First Motion for Request for Evidentiary Hearing in Support of a Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based upon Prosecutorial Misconduct: Retaliation and Obstruction of Trial Witness and Motion to Reconsider Request for Evidentiary Hearing in Support of a Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based upon Prosecutorial Misconduct: Tampering with Grand Jury Witness

2) Notice and Motion to Disqualify Travis County District Attorney’s Office and Appoint an Attorney Pro Tem

These motions document, in detail, a call from the elected Travis County District Attorney, Jose P. Garza to acting Austin Police Chief Joseph Chacon on August 3, 2021 only twenty one minutes after an affidavit from the detective (David Fugitt) investigating the death of Garrett Foster was filed in court. In that affidavit, Detective Fugitt alleged witness tampering and criminal actions by Mr. Garza. The result of Garza’s call to Chacon was that Detective Fugitt- a detective for over two decades with an impeccable record- was threatened with disciplinary action and forbidden from ever again speaking to the defense.

As described by Detective Fugitt in his notes:

●Assistant Chief Richard Gujardo told Det. Fugitt that “the [threatened] Internal Affairs complaint was in direct response to APD Interim Chief Joseph Chacon ‘getting his ass chewed’ by Travis District Attorney Jose Garza.” (emphasis in original)

●Gujardo told Det. Fugitt that Chacon was attempting to curry favor with Garza in Chacon’s efforts to be named the new police chief.

●Gujardo told Det. Fugitt that the threatened disciplinary complaint would not have happened if Det. Fugitt had “not come forward with the accusation of Witness Tampering by Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza.”

●Det. Fugitt noted “Assistant Chief Gujardo then gave me a ‘Direct Order’ that I am not to speak to Defense Attorneys Clint Broden or Doug O’Connell without a court ordered ‘subpoena.’ ”

These are clear efforts to obstruct justice in this case and deny the defense access to Detective Fugitt who, after a thorough investigation of this case, concluded:

The exculpatory evidence, impeaching information and evidence material to innocence that I was directed by the Travis County District Attorneys Office to remove from my grand jury presentation directly and unequivocally refutes the aggravated assault with motor vehicle charge ultimately returned by the grand jury.

The exculpatory evidence, impeaching information and evidence material to innocence that I was directed by the Travis County District Attorneys Office to remove from my grand jury presentation directly and unequivocally refutes the deadly conduct charge ultimately returned by the grand jury.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the available evidence supports the assessment that Daniel Scott Perry had the right to be on the public roadway, did not provoke an armed encounter with Garrett Foster or engage in criminal activity other than a traffic violation [ran red light] and reasonably acted in self-defense under Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.32 - deadly force in defense of person. Justified homicide.

The first motion implores the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing into Garza’s actions both in regard to allegations of witness tampering during the grand jury process and retaliation and obstruction of justice in relation to his call to Chacon. Mr. Broden notes:

These are serious charges and, if they were not true, it is mind blowing that Garza would not want an opportunity to clear his name. Garza’s adamant opposition to an evidentiary hearing speaks volumes regarding the truth of the allegations and show consciousness of guilt.

The second motion notes that, given Garza’s actions, he has become a witness in this case, necessitating the recusal of Garza’s office from the case and the appointment of an Attorney Pro Tem.

Broden notes, “Sgt. Perry has served this country’s military for almost a decade in order to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. To see an elected official such as Mr. Garza, one who is sworn to uphold the law, treat the constitution with such disdain is truly alarming. It should concern the courts and the citizens of Travis County.”

For any additional comments:

F. Clinton Broden

Broden & Mickelsen

clint@texascrimlaw.com

214-563-3154

https://www.brodenmickelsen.com/





Source: SubmitMyPR
Release ID: 32760