Attorneys lay out closing arguments in trial of former Uvalde school police officer Adrian Gonzales

From Texas Public Radio:

The jury has begun deliberations in the first criminal trial related to the 2022 school shooting massacre in Uvalde, Texas.

In closing arguments laid out Wednesday morning, both the prosecution and the defense passionately urged the jury to see the evidence their way.

Both sides also agreed that the jury’s verdict would send a message to law enforcement who respond to future school shootings — but they disagreed on what message the verdict would send.

“Make no mistake, the 12 of you will set the bar for law enforcement in these situations: if it’s appropriate to stand outside hearing a hundred shots while children are being slaughtered. That is your decision to tell the state of Texas,” Special Prosecutor Bill Turner told the jury.

Uvalde District Attorney Christina Mitchell said a guilty verdict would tell police officers that they will be held responsible if they don’t act.

“I want officers to know those days are over,” Mitchell said. “We’re not going to continue to teach children to rehearse their own death and not hold them to the training that’s mandated by law: that when you hear the gunfire, you go to it, you go to the shots, you stop the dying, and you hold civilians, children above yourself.”

Defense attorney Jason Goss, however, said that a guilty verdict would tell police officers that they could be prosecuted if they do act.

“What you tell police officers is, don’t go in, don’t react, don’t respond, stay on the perimeter, because Randy Hill isn’t sitting in that chair. He’s not,” said Goss, referring to an officer that the prosecution said had been assigned to create a perimeter around the scene.

“Adrian Gonzales is here. Randy Hill is not. None of those officers are in that chair,” Goss added. “That’s what you’re going to tell them. You’re going to tell them, ‘Don’t do it.’”

Defense attorney Nico LaHood told the jury that a verdict of not guilty would instead send a message to prosecutors that they shouldn’t single out one officer for charges.

“Send a message to the government that it wasn’t right to concentrate on Adrian Gonzales,” LaHood said. “Send the message you can’t do that. You can’t pick and choose.”

Another major point of difference is the timeline. The prosecution said Adrian Gonzales waited three and a half minutes to enter the hallway of the school and attempt to engage the gunman. The defense said there was only one minute and 48 seconds from the time Gonzales arrived on scene to the time the gunman entered the adjoined fourth grade classrooms where he killed 19 children and two teachers and injured 10 more children.

During closing arguments, the defense also repeatedly claimed that the prosecution was twisting the facts, often referring to a twisted pretzel. The prosecution, meanwhile, repeatedly made objections, saying that the defense was attempting to mislead the jury.

Adrian Gonzales is a former Uvalde school district police officer. The prosecution charged him with 29 counts of child endangerment for the 19 children who were killed in the shooting and the 10 children who were injured but survived.

If the jury comes back with a conviction, it will be up to the judge to decide Gonzales’ punishment. Under the Texas penal code, a charge of child endangerment comes with a maximum punishment of two years in state jail.

If you found the reporting above valuable, please consider making a donation to support it here. Your gift helps pay for everything you find on texasstandard.org and TPR.org. Thanks for donating today.