The following is a summary of facts based on what I have learned from several Open Records Requests to TABC, conversations with TABC officials, and conversations with the current County Attorney and both Republican candidates for County Attorney:
Based on the video evidence, it appears that TABC Agent Jonathan Jergins committed a Class A misdemeanor by furnishing a minor informant with alcohol during one of a series of stings on the night of September 16, 2016.
That night, Agent Jergins told the identification team that the bartender sold alcohol to the minor informant.
The bartender was charged with selling alcohol to a minor that night.
Days later
- The minor informant swore to a false (based on video evidence) affidavit that said that the bartender had served her the beer.
- The case agent, TABC Agent Meyers, created a report indicating that the bartender had sold the minor informant the beer after not checking her ID.
- Agent Jergins wrote a supplemental report indicating that the bartender had sold the minor informant the beer after checking her ID.
During an internal affairs interview, Agent Jergins said that he, the case agent, and presumably the Assistant County Attorney discussed the discrepancy in the reports regarding whether or not the bartender checked ID.
Agent Jergins testified at trial that if he had hypothetically given the minor a beer during the sting this would be a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.
After Agent Jergins' testimony, the bartender's attorney showed the video of Agent Jergins (not the bartender) giving the beer to the minor.
Despite this new evidence the Assistant County Attorney, rather than dropping the charges, moved forward with the case. The jury found the bartender not guilty.
During the TABC internal affairs investigation, Agent Jergins indicated that his only regret regarding what he put in his report is that he wished he would have put in less detail and left out who took the beer off the bar.
TABC Executive Director Bentley Nettles indicated that the TABC "found no wrongdoing on the part of Agent Jergins," when Agent Jergins was caught on video committing the Class A misdemeanor of furnishing a minor with alcohol and then reported and testified that it was the bartender that served her the beer.
TABC updated procedure to have Agents write reports the night of the sting. Agent Jergins falsely told the identification team that the bartender committed the crime on the night of the sting. Given he was falsely describing events that night, there is no reason to think writing them down will prevent this in the future.
The TABC public relations officer indicated that Agent Jergins did not break the law for possession of alcohol by a minor since she was under the supervision of a peace officer during a sting. The public relations officer has not responded since I reminded him that Agent Jergins committed the offense of providing a minor with alcohol, not for possession of alcohol by a minor.
The current County Attorney and both Republican candidates for County Attorney have indicated that they will not make any changes to their procedures in dealing with TABC cases in light of the incident (e.g., by requiring video evidence in stings).
District Attorney Parsons did not indict Agent Jergins for perjury. His office was the only one presenting to the grand jury. Only 9 of 12 grand jurors needed to determine probable cause (not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or anything) in order to indict. His office almost certainly bent over backwards to get the "no-bill" finding. I have trouble believing any practicing attorney could be so incompetent to get that result without trying.
Government agents' committing crimes then falsely testifying against citizens is a big deal. TABC administration covering for these agents' bad actions is a big deal. The District Attorney apparently bending over backwards to cover for these bad actions is a big deal. The County Attorney's refusing to change procedure (e.g., requiring video evidence) in light of these bad actions is a big deal.
In Conclusion:
TABC, as it is now, appears to be incapable of needed reform Executive Director Nettles should resign or be fired;
District Attorney Parsons is either exceptionally incompetent or (more likely) is unwilling to hold government agents accountable for falsely testifying against Brazos County citizens and he probably needs to be replaced;
The candidates for County Attorney need to publicly commit to protecting the citizens of Brazos County and not turn a blind eye to state agents coming in to falsely testify against Brazos County citizens.
Based on the video evidence, it appears that TABC Agent Jonathan Jergins committed a Class A misdemeanor by furnishing a minor informant with alcohol during one of a series of stings on the night of September 16, 2016.
That night, Agent Jergins told the identification team that the bartender sold alcohol to the minor informant.
The bartender was charged with selling alcohol to a minor that night.
Days later
- The minor informant swore to a false (based on video evidence) affidavit that said that the bartender had served her the beer.
- The case agent, TABC Agent Meyers, created a report indicating that the bartender had sold the minor informant the beer after not checking her ID.
- Agent Jergins wrote a supplemental report indicating that the bartender had sold the minor informant the beer after checking her ID.
During an internal affairs interview, Agent Jergins said that he, the case agent, and presumably the Assistant County Attorney discussed the discrepancy in the reports regarding whether or not the bartender checked ID.
Agent Jergins testified at trial that if he had hypothetically given the minor a beer during the sting this would be a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.
After Agent Jergins' testimony, the bartender's attorney showed the video of Agent Jergins (not the bartender) giving the beer to the minor.
Despite this new evidence the Assistant County Attorney, rather than dropping the charges, moved forward with the case. The jury found the bartender not guilty.
During the TABC internal affairs investigation, Agent Jergins indicated that his only regret regarding what he put in his report is that he wished he would have put in less detail and left out who took the beer off the bar.
TABC Executive Director Bentley Nettles indicated that the TABC "found no wrongdoing on the part of Agent Jergins," when Agent Jergins was caught on video committing the Class A misdemeanor of furnishing a minor with alcohol and then reported and testified that it was the bartender that served her the beer.
TABC updated procedure to have Agents write reports the night of the sting. Agent Jergins falsely told the identification team that the bartender committed the crime on the night of the sting. Given he was falsely describing events that night, there is no reason to think writing them down will prevent this in the future.
The TABC public relations officer indicated that Agent Jergins did not break the law for possession of alcohol by a minor since she was under the supervision of a peace officer during a sting. The public relations officer has not responded since I reminded him that Agent Jergins committed the offense of providing a minor with alcohol, not for possession of alcohol by a minor.
The current County Attorney and both Republican candidates for County Attorney have indicated that they will not make any changes to their procedures in dealing with TABC cases in light of the incident (e.g., by requiring video evidence in stings).
District Attorney Parsons did not indict Agent Jergins for perjury. His office was the only one presenting to the grand jury. Only 9 of 12 grand jurors needed to determine probable cause (not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or anything) in order to indict. His office almost certainly bent over backwards to get the "no-bill" finding. I have trouble believing any practicing attorney could be so incompetent to get that result without trying.
Government agents' committing crimes then falsely testifying against citizens is a big deal. TABC administration covering for these agents' bad actions is a big deal. The District Attorney apparently bending over backwards to cover for these bad actions is a big deal. The County Attorney's refusing to change procedure (e.g., requiring video evidence) in light of these bad actions is a big deal.
In Conclusion:
Brian Alg
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government