Pursuant to the Brady doctrine, the State has an affirmative obligation under the Due Process Clause to timely disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Usually, Brady violations come to light after a conviction, with the defense having to establish a reasonably probability that the undisclosed evidence would have changed the outcome at trial. But, in the trial of a police officer accused of endangering the children in the Uvalde school shooting, the defense is currently claiming that they’ve uncovered a Brady violation mid-trial.
Former Uvalde school police officer Adrian Gonzales is being tried on 29 counts of child endangerment based on failing to act promptly during the Uvalde school. At trial, the prosecution called former Uvalde elementary school teacher Stephanie Hale, who “initially told jurors that she saw the shooter on the south side of the Robb Elementary School on the day of the shooting and remembered she and her students being shot at.” Specifically, she stated “that she saw a gunman wearing black approaching the school from an area near where Adrian Gonzales was.”
But then, “prosecutors soon acknowledged that, in an interview with state investigators four days after the shooting, Hale didn’t mention seeing the shooter or being shot at.” This then led to the following exchange:
“You would agree with me in listening to the totality of your interview four days after that, you never tell the (investigator) that you saw anybody that was dressed in black with long hair and a fire and a gun?” a defense lawyer asked.
“Correct,” she said.
“You agree that you never told him that you saw dirt flying up on the playground … You felt like you were being shot at, which was your opinion?” Hale was asked.
“Correct,” she said.
The defense claimed that this had never been disclosed to the defense and constituted a Brady violation because it undermined Hale’s claim that she saw the shooter walking by Gonzales.
It will be very interesting to see whether the judge finds this constitutes a Brady violation and, if so, what relief is granted, such as a mistrial, a continuance, or striking Hale’s testimony.