Travis County District Attorney José Garza is off to a really rough start in his second term, which began January 1. He’s embroiled in controversy because two alleged murderers were released on $1 and $100 bonds when Garza’s office failed to indict them within 90 days, as required by state law. If things keep going like this for Garza it might shave a percentage point or two off his landslide victory margin in the 2028 Travis County Democratic Primary.
Bettie Cross of CBS first broke the story that murder suspect Stephon Morson was released after his bond was lowered from $800,000 to $1. Çross’s story was posted the same day Morson was released, February 14.
Then, on February 18 Tony Plohetski (reporting for both the Austin American-Statesman and KVUE) tied Morson’s release to Garza’s office missing a state law deadline to indict accused criminals or let them out of jail. He also reported that another man arrested for murder had been released in December after Garza’s office missed the same deadline for him. Here is Plohetski‘s lead for KVUE: “Two murder suspects in Austin were released from jail on dramatically lowered bonds after prosecutors in Travis County District Attorney José Garza’s office missed back-to-back deadlines to secure indictments.”
As Plohetski also explains, “Under Texas law, defendants charged with a felony must be released on personal bond or reduced bail if the state fails to bring an indictment within 90 days. A 2021 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opinion mandates that judges must lower bail to an amount the accused can afford.”
The second accused murderer is Juan Antonio Ramirez.
Ramirez, 32, is accused of a 2022 fatal shooting during an apparent drug deal. As Plothetski describes it. “Using forensics, security video and eyewitnesses, Austin Police Department (APD) investigators spent 18 months building a case against a man suspected of killing someone during a botched drug deal before they finally arrested him in May (2024).”
The now 19-year-old Morson is charged with an October 2024 shooting death on Burton Drive in southeast Austin. He was arrested after police found a pair of discarded Yeezy shoes and a Nike hoodie in a trash can (where an apartment complex employee had unwittingly placed them) near the murder scene. According to APD investigators the shoes matched what a man appearing to be Morson was wearing in a video taken shortly before the murder. Police also say that bloody shoe prints at the scene match the Yeezys found in the nearby trash.
Garza’s office managed to secure an indictment of Morson early the week after he was released. The case then went back to Judge Chantal Eldridge, the judge who lowered the bonds for the two accused murderers after Garza’s office failed to meet the 90-day deadline to indict. After finally indicting Morson the District Attorney’s Office asked Eldridge to hold a hearing on increasing Morson’s bond. That hearing took place on Wednesday February 19. Eldridge increased Morson’s bond to $100,000 and sent him back to jail. Also, according to a report from Fox7, Eldridge “looked directly at” representatives of the DA’s Office and said, “Please do not allow the 90 days to lapse ever again.”
Ramirez remains out on $1 bond, reduced from $1 million when the DA’s office failed to meet the 90-day deadline.
What Would Harry Truman Do?
Somewhat surprisingly, to me anyway, José Garza made himself available for at least three TV interviews on the subject. The first two were with Plohetski (working jointly for KVUE and the Austin American-Statesman) and with Abigail Velez of CBS Austin.
The CBS Austin interview begins with Garza saying, “We will let our community decide who’s at fault or who should be blamed. What my job is is to make sure we have solutions in place and that people who pose a danger to our community are being held in custody.”
The DA then proceeded to suggest that other people were to blame, besides himself. In both interviews Garza first blamed an unnamed veteran prosecutor who worked in his office. For instance in his interview with Velez, Garza explained: “We recognized some significant management problems with a 20-year prosecutor who was handling that case.” Garza then added, “We immediately took action to demote that prosecutor, and she subsequently resigned without notice.”
Garza said much the same thing in his interview with Plohetski and described what happened as “management challenges.”
In the CBS Austin interview, Garza tried to throw reporters off the scent by pulling the Austin Police Department and Police Chief Lisa Davis into the fray: “Both APD and the District Attorney’s Office are dealing with technological and cultural challenges in the Travis County court system about how evidence moves,” said Garza.” But, I am confident that Chief Davis is committed to this. APD has already taken action to make sure that evidence is getting to our office quickly.”
So, he drags APD and Chief Davis into the discussion, but stops short of blaming them for the two cases where accused murderers were set free due to his office’s failure to meet a deadline.
Next Garza turned his blame-placing eye to Judge Eldridge, who lowered the bonds for the two accused murderers; after his office failed to meet the 90-day deadline to indict. He suggested that the presiding judge could have avoided lowering the bond. “Courts do have the authority, once the case is indicted, to ensure that a suspect stays in custody,” volunteered Garza.
Velez quickly asked: “Why do you think that didn’t happen the first time around?”
“It sounds to me like the judge misunderstood the law,” replied the District Attorney.”
After reading the above exchange a few times I discovered an apparent discrepancy in Garza’s assertion. He insisted, “Courts do have the authority, once the case is indicted, to ensure that a suspect stays in custody.” The whole problem here though, is that Garza’s office failed to indict within the required 90-day period. So the situation he describes, in which he maintains that judges have the power to keep suspects in custody “once the case is indicted,” is different — including legally different — than the situation that actually occurred.
We asked Garza’s office about this, and a few other things, but didn’t hear back.
By the way, my pointing out the above should in no way be read as a criticism of Velez for not having caught Garza’s word trick during the interview. She followed Garza’s assertion with a question that clearly needed to be asked; a question that drew from him the rather startling charge that “the judge misunderstood the law.”
In fact, while watching both interviews I was struck by the professionalism and the preparation of the two reporters, especially in contrast to the dodgy, refuse-to-take-responsibility, approach of DA Garza.
Meredith Aldis of Fox7 was also well prepared for Garza in a February 19 interview. There Garza reiterated his charge that Judge Eldridge was wrong on the law and did a slightly different version of his 90th day and 91st day routine from the interview with Velez. Following is a partial transcript published on the Fox7 website, beginning with the explanation, “The judge has said she didn’t want to release Morson, however, she didn’t have any discretion.”
Garza: ”The judge in this case had the tools to keep our community safe and failed to use those tools.”
Aldis: ”Why though not an indictment within 90 days, that’s the first problem that then snowballs.”
Garza: ”Again, the law is clear that judges have the authority to address community safety and set a bail once the indictment has been returned.”
Aldis: ”But the indictment wasn’t returned.”
Garza: ”No, that’s not true, in this case the indictment was returned prior to the court’s hearing on the motion to reduce bail.” [But, after Morson was released from jail.]
Aldis: “But not in 90 days.”
Garza: ”Correct, but the statute doesn’t say, the law doesn’t say that if you’re not indicted within 90 days you must be released no matter what.” (end of transcript)
Boomer Alert: President Harry Truman famously kept a sign on his desk at the White House reading “The Buck Stops Here” to illustrate his belief that he was responsible for the actions of his administration and that as president he had to make the final decision.
Travis County Judges Speak Out – A Rare Occurrence
Travis County judges do not appear to share Garza’s analysis of their powers. Several also say that the frequency of having to release prisoners because of the DA’s Office missing deadlines has increased under Garza.
Judges seldomly speak to the media, but several did in this instance. As Plohetski wrote, “Several of the county’s nine felony district judges, all Democrats, said they are left with no option when an attorney seeks their client’s jail release because prosecutors failed to obtain an indictment by deadline.” He also reported that Judge Eldridge “suggests that state lawmakers should amend the law to give judges more flexibility when they believe a suspect poses a danger to the community.” Eldridge then said she could not comment further.
Plohetski also reported: “Multiple felony judges reported an increase in jail release requests due to missed indictment deadlines during Garza’s administration.”
Plohetski set the stage by paraphrasing Judge Selena Alvarenga who estimated “an average of 10 such motions per month. She told the Statesman that she can’t say whether that is an increase over the years before Garza took office because she took office at the same time, in January 2021.”
Next Plohetski wrote that Judge Karen Sage, in office since 2014, “said the number of instances in which she is releasing a defendant on a reduced bond because of a lack of an indictment ‘has increased substantially’ during the Garza administration.”
Plohetski then related a conversation with Judge Tamara Needles who “said ‘this just didn’t happen’ when she was a defense attorney before taking the bench in 2017.”
Needles added, ‘“I do think I am seeing it more.”’ she said.
Also, Judge Dayna Blazey told Plohetski, ‘”I have definitely seen an increase in the number of defense requests for personal bonds when the state has not indicted a case within 90 days. As a former prosecutor, who was over the grand jury division in previous administrations, this is a disturbing trend that has not typically happened in the past.”’
Judge Karen Sage, in office since 2014, “said the number of instances in which she is releasing a defendant on a reduced bond because of a lack of an indictment ‘has increased substantially’ during the Garza administration.”
From Austin AMerican-Statesman Article and KVUE Report by Tony Plohetski
There is a fundamental reason that all the judges quoted above have to rely on memory and estimates as to whether the number of missed deadlines has increased under Garza. Travis County doesn’t keep records of that. Travis County Judges don’t. The District Attorney doesn’t. Nor does the County Clerk, nor apparently any other office within the Travis County governing structure. This points to a larger problem of transparency for the Travis County court system and its too often opaque approach to providing public access to records; at least I have found it that way.
Defense attorney Brian Erskine, who represents both Ramirez and Morson, also apparently believes there are multiple cases where the current DA’s Office has failed to meet the 90-day deadline. He also had a theory on why the DA’s office missed the deadlines. Plohetski writes, in a follow-up story, that Erskine “said these were just two cases among several in which defendants have been freed on bond after missing key deadlines.” Plohetski added that Erskine, “said he believes that prosecutors did not properly place the deadlines on their calendars and that he was ethically bound to seek their release.”
Erskine also told Fox7 News, “I do believe that this is, in fact, a show to try to move the fault of their office [DA] from their failure to indict over on to the judge, putting the onus on her to make a difficult decision and essentially just absolving themselves of their malfeasance.”
Senator Eckhardt Also Speaks Up
Those were all Democratic judges speaking about what they see in their courts. An even more stunning statement of concern about Garza, from a fellow Democrat, came two days after the original story broke. Discussing the two missed deadlines that led to the release of murder suspects on very low bail, State Senator Sarah Eckhardt told KVUE, “That is a problem of practice in the District Attorney’s Office. And that is of grave public safety concern. And we should definitely take a critical look at what’s happening in the District Attorney’s Office.”
Texas State Senator Sarah Eckhardt
Eckhardt also told KVUE, “There is mounting evidence that our district attorney is not vigorously prosecuting cases, and that is of grave public safety and also of grave concern for the fairness to the accused.”
“There is mounting evidence that our district attorney is not vigorously prosecuting cases, and that is of grave public safety and also of grave concern for the fairness to the accused.”
Texas State Senator Sarah Eckhardt
Eckhardt did more than make a public statement of concern. The Statesman reported, “the Austin senator said she has requested information from Garza and his staff about the number of times they have missed a deadline to indict defendants that led to their release on dramatically reduced bonds.”
KXAN also reported on Eckhardt speaking out and “asking questions to the Travis County District Attorney’s office.” For that story Eckhardt’s office released a statement reading:
“Senator Eckhardt—who previously served as the Assistant Travis County Attorney for eight years—has been in touch with the District Attorney about the reports emerging from his office. She has sought clarity about the number of times deadlines have been missed, as well as wanting to know how the district attorney plans to remedy the issue moving forward. She continues to gather information about this situation, but in her talks with the District Attorney, and other stakeholders, concerns about fairness, integrity, and public accountability have not been resolved.”
Garza’s office appeared to be particularly angry about the last sentence in Eckhardt’s statement. His office released a statement to KXAN which read in part, “Our office rejects any suggestion from the State Senator and others that our office does not take equity, fairness, or accountability seriously. We were elected to take over an office that was broken. . .” (Note that Eckhardt did not say anything about “equity.” In their reply the DA’s Office replaced “integrity” with “equity.”)
The DA’s statement went on to say, “We understand there are questions about the indictment process in our office. Our office is currently conducting a review of all of our in-custody cases to ensure that prosecutors are working to secure indictments both quickly and also responsibly. While there are reasons a case may take longer than 90 days to present to the grand jury, including because of a lack of evidence, it is unacceptable for a case to remain unindicted due to a lack of care. Beyond the two cases handled by a career prosecutor, who is no longer employed by Travis County, we have not discovered any other case that falls within that latter category. However, we take this seriously and will continue our review while putting more systems in place to ensure this does not happen again.”
In the above statement, among other things, Garza maintains that the two cases publicly revealed are the only ones that went over 90 days “due to a lack of care,” presumably meaning cases similar to the two discussed here and that sparked Eckhardt’s expression of “grave concern.” As reported above, several Travis County judges, who hear such cases, appear to believe that there are more than two. So stay tuned on that one.
It is not totally surprising that Senator Eckhardt would express her concerns publicly. She is an independent-minded Senator who has not hesitated to speak out before when she disagrees with City or County policies. Usually those statements have come when she explains her vote on a bill at the legislature. In fact, the statements about Garza were made while the legislature is considering changes to bail laws.
Also, before being elected to the Texas Senate, Eckhardt served as Travis County Judge (not the judicial type of county judge, but the top executive of Travis County) and thus deeply understands county government in Texas. Before running for office Eckhardt worked in the County Attorney’s Office. Eckhardt has also trounced all her political opponents in campaigns for County Commissioner, County Judge and then State Senator.
An Opportunity for Democrats to Reflect?
Eckhardt’s record of trouncing political opponents may have something to do with why none of DA Garza’s usual defenders are rushing to his aid in the current crisis. For instance none of “The Ten” officeholders who scrambled to defend him during last year’s Travis County Democratic primary have stepped forward this time. The 10 officials, led by Congressman Greg Casar, charged Garza’s well qualified Democratic opponent with “parroting Republican talking points and attacks” and demanded that he stop doing so. The Ten did not provide a single example. And, they did not have to. More than 64,000 Travis County Democrats, 67%, voted for Garza despite ample evidence that he was soft on prosecuting violent criminals.
This is something on which Democrats might want to reflect after American voters chose Donald Trump over the Democratic candidate just a few months ago. We are of course now seeing the consequences of that choice on an hourly basis.
I have been reflecting on all that myself and here is the core of my thinking. I believe that Trump is going to damage and alienate millions of Americans with his policies (especially by letting the unelected Elon Musk run wild over the federal workforce, but that’s just one example). So I believe that in 2028, or even in 2026, American voters will be looking for an alternative. But, if those voters look toward Democrats and see exactly the same Democratic Party, then many will likely turn right back to the Republicans.
This brings me back to The Ten and their charge that Garza’s 2024 Democratic opponent was “parroting Republican talking points and attacks.” Those “talking points” had to do with letting violent criminals go free without punishment, or with very little. Garza of course sees his approach not as being easy on violent criminals, but as criminal justice reform. Criminal justice reform is merited and was underway in Travis County long before José Garza arrived. But, that doesn’t have to mean letting violent criminals off with little, if any, punishment.
And there was plenty of evidence by 2024 of José Garza doing just that. It wasn’t that Austin media failed to cover Garza’s approach to his job or his record of being soft on violent criminals. Just like this story today was gathered largely from other media outlets, the stories of Garza letting violent criminals go free during his first term were widely covered in the Austin media.
Now, back to Democrats; as long as Democrats leave opposing violent crime to Republicans they will win few victories, except in “progressive” outposts like Travis County. Perhaps Senator Eckhardt’s public criticism of DA Garza marks a turning point. That is far from clear, however, and in any case there is a long way to go.
In fairness on the violent crime discussion, the current situation perhaps points more to incompetence than to taking it easy on violent criminals. The immediate result of that incompetence though, was for accused murderers to be let loose on Austin’s streets. Also, during my many years participating in and observing politics I have found that ideological zeal is often accompanied by incompetence and/or a lack of interest in the actual mechanics of governing.
I submit José Garza as Exhibit A for ideological zeal accompanied by incompetence.
Like the tolerant approach to violent criminals, the incompetence angle was also apparent by 2024. For instance, as we reported at the time, KXAN found that Garza and his team provided inaccurate and misleading statistics to make it look like they were being much tougher on violent criminals than they actually were. Garza first defended the statistics, but later quietly removed the claims from his campaign website, where they had been for months. When KXAN discovered that Garza had taken down the false claims and asked why, he replied, “You know, at the end of the day, we are attorneys, not statisticians.”
But, Democratic voters in Austin either were unaware of all this or did not consider it enough to vote against Garza.
If Democrats want to reflect on José Garza now, there’s plenty of time. His term lasts through 2028.
(The above article was edited shortly after publication to correct some typos and spacing problems. None of the content was changed.)
A Note to Readers. Thanks for making it down to here. As readers may have noticed the Austin Independent’s article frequency has been a little slower this year. That’s primarily because we are working on a number of articles that require even deeper than usual research. Those articles should start appearing soon, but frequency may still be slow for a while. That brings us to our next item.
Austin Independent Marks 5 Years of Publishing. That’s right. We published our first story on March 1, 2020; right before the coronavirus descended on the country. Adela and I both have enjoyed it, most of the time. And, we really appreciate our readers. So thank you very much. And, if you want to give us a birthday present (and help us keep going) by subscribing or donating, please click here. Thanks, Daryl
________________________
To make sure you keep up with new stories, please sign up for email alerts to keep track of when the Austin Independent posts stories. Subscribers are automatically added to email alerts, but if you are not able to subscribe we will still send you email alerts. To sign up click here. You can also write to the editor at the same link, or send us an email under Contact
The Austin Independent, a publication of The Austin Independent, LLC
All Rights Reserved