A Texas jury started deliberations Wednesday in the trial of Adrian Gonzales, the former Uvalde school police officer accused of failing to confront the school shooter at Robb Elementary School in May 2022.
The deliberations come three weeks into Gonzales’ trial on 29 counts of baby endangerment or abandonment associated to his actions throughout the mass capturing. He has pleaded not responsible to all costs.
In closing arguments Wednesday morning, particular prosecutor Bill Turner advised jurors they will ship a transparent message with their verdict.
“If it’s appropriate to stand outside, hearing 100 shots, while children are being slaughtered, that is your decision to tell the state of Texas,” he mentioned. “And by the same token, if that is not appropriate, that is not how we expect officers that are charged with the duty of protecting children to act, that will also go out from this courtroom.”
In response, protection legal professional Jason Goss mentioned a responsible verdict would ship a distinct message to legislation enforcement: If you’re taking some motion in response to a capturing, you can equally be sitting in court docket as a defendant.
“What you’re telling police officers is don’t react, don’t respond,” he advised the jury. “We cannot have law enforcement feel that way. That if they’re not perfect, if they don’t make a perfect decision, then that’s where they go.”
Prosecutors referred to as 35 witnesses, together with academics, dad and mom, legislation enforcement officers and medical specialists, as they sought to show Gonzales – the primary officer to reply to the capturing – discovered concerning the gunman’s motion and heard gunshots however didn’t try to cease the assault.
The protection referred to as simply two witnesses over two hours Tuesday. They centered their energies as an alternative on cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses, probing for inconsistencies, elevating questions on what Gonzales knew and when he knew it and difficult the actions and inactions of different officers on scene.
Gonzales didn’t testify in his personal protection.
The trial is the primary felony case stemming from the May 2022 mass capturing at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, in which an 18-year-old gunman fatally shot 19 youngsters and two academics and wounded one other 10 youngsters. Hundreds of police rushed to the school to reply, nevertheless it took 77 minutes for them to confront and kill the shooter – a prolonged time interval that has led to years of investigations and finger-pointing concerning the delay.
In 2024, Gonzales and former Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District Police Chief Pete Arredondo had been indicted on criminal charges associated to the delayed response. Arredondo has pleaded not responsible, and a trial date has not been set.
The felony case in opposition to Gonzales raises troublesome authorized questions concerning the duties of police officers and who may be held accountable for a mass capturing. If convicted, he may face six months to two years in jail for every depend.
This is barely the second case ever introduced in opposition to a school police officer accused of failing to act throughout an lively shooter scenario. In the primary such case, a Florida jury acquitted the school resource officer who stayed outdoors throughout the 2018 mass capturing at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
Day one of former Uvalde school cop’s trial
The prosecution’s case primarily relied on emotional accounts of the capturing from school workers, dad and mom and police officers, in addition to Gonzales’ personal phrases and specialists on lively shooter response protocols.
Teacher’s aide Melodye Flores supplied the one firsthand testimony about what Gonzales did in the primary couple of minutes after the capturing started. She testified she advised the officer two or thrice the place the shooter was headed.
“I just kept pointing. ‘He’s going in there. He’s going into the fourth-grade building,’” she mentioned. “He just stayed there,” she mentioned of the officer. “He was pacing back and forth,” Flores mentioned she may hear pictures being fired.
Lead protection legal professional Nico LaHood questioned Flores about inconsistencies in her statements, together with descriptions of the officer and his patrol automobile that don’t match Gonzales or his car. He recommended she might have misremembered or misunderstood different elements of what she skilled.
“There’s a lot going on in your mind at that time, right?” LaHood requested Flores. “You testified that (Gonzales) was just kind of pacing back and forth,” he mentioned. “But he was getting out. He’s assessing you because you’re yelling things at him, right?”
Another key piece of proof was Gonzales’ personal phrases in a recorded interview with a Texas Ranger and an FBI agent the day after the capturing.
In the interview, first reported by NCS earlier than the trial started, jurors heard Gonzales admit he made a mistake when he arrived on campus and encountered a instructor’s aide who advised him the gunman was dressed in all black and was attempting to enter the school’s fourth-grade constructing.
“Now that I can sit back, I went tunnel vision, like I said, with the lady that was running,” Gonzales mentioned in the hour-long video interview performed for the jury. “That was my mistake.”
Gonzales additionally described in the video ready for canopy from different arriving officers and supplied that as the rationale he didn’t instantly enter the school and discover the shooter.
In closing arguments, Turner mentioned Gonzales had a obligation to strive to cease the assault and failed to accomplish that, selecting as an alternative to look forward to backup.
“If you have a duty to act, you can’t stand by while a child is in imminent danger,” Turner mentioned.
The protection’s first witness was Claudia Rodriguez, who testified that she noticed the gunman cover from Gonzales as he arrived at Robb Elementary. Rodriguez recounted seeing the shooter duck between automobiles in the school’s parking zone as Gonzales drove previous.
The protection additionally referred to as retired San Antonio SWAT officer Willie Cantu as an knowledgeable witness. He testified concerning the stresses of responding to an lively shooter scenario in what he referred to as “inattentive blindness.” He mentioned there was lacking context about what Gonzales was seeing and listening to, which made it troublesome to decide whether or not his response was applicable.
The protection’s closing arguments, in the meantime, famous that Gonzales did truly act by racing to the scene, getting into the school hallway and taking fireplace from the gunman.
“He didn’t just stand by, he acted, except (prosecutors) just ignore all of his actions,” Goss mentioned.
He mentioned prosecutors had “twisted” the proof in the case to pin Gonzales as a scapegoat.
“Those kids are not served, the memories of those children is not honored, by an injustice in their name,” Goss mentioned.
Video: Outburst of slain Uvalde instructor’s sister in court docket
Throughout the trial up to now, the one fixed in the courtroom’s gallery has been the presence of bereaved members of the family of Robb Elementary victims.
At one level, Velma Duran yelled towards the protection desk the place Gonzales was sitting. Her sister, Irma Garcia, was shot and killed in Room 112 of Robb Elementary School as she tried to defend her fourth-grade college students, some of whom survived.
Duran shouted from the again of the courtroom following tense protection questioning of a sheriff’s deputy about insurance policies and procedures, similar to how to keep away from a “fatal funnel,” the place a stack of officers may theoretically be shot by one attacker.
“You know who went into the ‘fatal funnel’? My sister went into the ‘fatal funnel,’” she mentioned loudly and clearly as Judge Sid Harle started to admonish her.
“Did she need a key? Why do you need a key? Wasn’t it locked?” she cried out in an more and more distressed voice as she was taken from the general public gallery. “Y’all saying she didn’t lock her door. She went into the … she went into the ‘fatal funnel.’ She did it! Not you!”
The decide advised the jury to disregard the outburst, and later admonished the gallery, together with the members of the family current.
This is a growing story and will likely be up to date.