in the Perry case.
Quote:
Austin Police Department homicide Detective David Fugitt is a well-regarded veteran with APD and has worked more than 50 cases across about 18 years, solving all but about four of them. APD tends to place its most difficult cases under Fugitt due to his sterling record. Most recently, Fugitt has been the lead detective on the case of a shooting that happened in downtown Austin, Texas, in the summer of 2020.
Quote:
On the night of July 25, 2020, a group of protesters illegally took over an intersection in downtown Austin. They approached a car as it was trying to make its way past the crowd through the intersection. One of the protesters, Garrett Foster, was carrying a loaded AK-47 rifle. As Foster approached the car in the darkness that night, apparently pointing the rifle at the driver, the driver, Army Sgt. Daniel Perry, fired his handgun in Foster's direction from his car. Foster was killed. At least one other protester fired at Perry as he drove away. Perry was later stopped by Austin police and questioned about the shooting. He reportedly told the officers he fired in self-defense as Foster approached with his rifle pointed at him, as photos taken at the scene indicate. Texas castle law extends to one's car and allows the use of deadly force in self-defense if the driver believes his or her life is in danger. Perry is a concealed handgun permit carrier, indicating a clean criminal record. He was driving for Uber on the night of the shooting and was released after questioning.
Quote:
Jose Garza was elected Travis County district attorney in the 2020 elections on a platform of prosecuting police officers. After coming into office, he reviewed Perry's case and indicted him on a murder charge. The indictment came as a surprise, given the known facts of the case and Texas castle law.
Quote:
In the affidavit, which PJ Media has obtained, Detective Fugitt says:Quote:
Prior to the grand jury presentation in this case, I had several conversations with the District Attorney's Office regarding the presentation of exculpatory evidence related to Daniel Perry. It became clear to me that the District Attorney's Office did not want to present evidence to the grand jury that would be exculpatory to Daniel Perry and/or to show that witness statements obtained by the family of Garrett Foster and/or their attorneys were inconsistent with prior interviews such "witnesses" gave the police and/or the video of the incident in question. I had also wanted to present previous statements from the Complainant in Count 2 where she never once suggested that Daniel Perry intentionally and knowingly threatened her with imminent bodily injury by driving a motor vehicle in her direction. The District Attorney's Office also made me remove an animation from Daniel Perry's driving the night of the incident coordinated with his cell phone records that would have refuted the deadly conduct charge ultimately returned by the grand jury.
On more than one occasion I was directed by the Travis County Attorney's Office to remove exculpatory information that I had intended to present to the grand jury during my testimony. At that point, I specifically asked if there would be "ramifications" if I did not do so. I was told by Assistant District Attorney Guillermo Gonzalez that he would ask the elected District Attorney, Jose Garza, what would happen if I refused to agree to the limitations I was being ordered to comply with. I was later sent an email simply reaffirming the exculpatory subjects that I was forbidden from mentioning during my testimony. Of my original 158 slide powerpoint presentation, the presentation was reduced to 56 slides with almost all of the exculpatory evidence ordered removed. I felt like I did not have any other options but to comply with their orders.
LinkQuote:
"I firmly believe the District Attorney's Office, acting under the authority of Jose P. Garza, tampered with me as a witness," Detective Fugitt says in the sworn affidavit. "Often witness tampering is subtle. In this case, there were foreseeable consequences if I did not comply and tailor my grand jury presentation as directed and failure to do so would adversely affect my working relationship with the District Attorney's Office for the foreseeable future. I was afforded no choice but to comply with the directives that were issued to me by Jose Garza through his assistants."
"I am familiar with the crime of witness tampering as set out in the Texas Penal Code and under the circumstances believe myself to be a victim of such tampering," he said. "Furthermore, in coordination with my direct chain of command, I sought legal advice from Chris Coppola, Assistant City Attorney."
