The judge presiding over the removal case against Travis County District Attorney José Garza said Tuesday that the court needs more evidence before signing an order dismissing the case.
After U.S. Attorney Jim Nichols filed a motion to dismiss on Friday, efforts to remove Garza from office over “misconduct” allegations appeared largely over. However, a notice filed Tuesday by Comal State District Judge Dib Waldrip, who is presiding over the case, clarified that evidence — in the form of affidavits or admissible exhibits — must be presented before a release can be approved.
Garza’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
The lawsuit against Garza alleges that as district attorney he presented every police use-of-force case to a grand jury, compiled a “do not subpoena” list of police officers and instructed his office not to prosecute felony seizures such as drug possession and abortion . Notes previously obtained by the Statesman show that the latter policy was abandoned last August.
The petition against Garza was filed under Texas House Bill 17, which became law last year. The bill expanded the existing state procedures for the removal of a district attorney, allowing for the possibility of such removal in the event of a finding of “failure to fulfill official duties.” Many have characterized HB 17 as a legislative effort to thwart attempts at reform by progressive district attorneys.
Nichols, the Bell County Republican attorney assigned to review evidence in the case, wrote in a letter Friday that he found that the Travis County District Attorney’s Office did not have a policy of not prosecuting certain crimes.
In his notice, Waldrip outlined two possible paths to dismissal. The first involves the plaintiff in the case, Mary Dupuis, filing a notice of dismissal, a legal document releasing Garza from liability. Dupuis previously posted on the social media platform X that she decided to file a petition after the Travis County District Attorney’s Office failed to adequately resolve her sexual assault case.
Alternatively, a motion to dismiss could be signed if the prosecutor provides sworn testimony from someone with first-hand knowledge of the issues raised in the motion within the next 30 days. According to Tuesday’s notice, the motion to dismiss the complaint was justified only by a “synthesis” of the evidence.
Waldrip wrote that the court “may likely remand this case for status consideration” if neither a motion to dismiss nor a motion to hear affidavit is filed within the next 30 days.
Investigative officer Editor Tony Plohetski contributed to this report.