Walmart shooting defense lawyers allege prosecutorial misconduct, seek dismissal of charges or removal of death penalty
by Robert Moore, El Paso Matters
September 9, 2024
The capital murder and assault charges against the accused Walmart mass shooter should be dismissed, or the death penalty should be taken off the table because of repeated prosecutorial misconduct, defense lawyers said in a motion filed Monday.
The motion alleges that prosecutors since 2020 have violated the rights of Patrick Crusius, now 26, who is charged in the Aug. 3, 2019, mass shooting at the El Paso Walmart that killed 23 people and wounded 23 others.
The defense’s motion alleges that the state case against Crusius is “permeated with the misconduct of the El Paso District Attorney’s Office.” While many of the allegations involve former District Attorney Yvonne Rosales, some of the alleged misconduct occurred during the administrations of former DA Jaime Esparza and current DA Bill Hicks.
The allegations include improper witness contact, ongoing violations of a court-imposed gag order, suppression of exculpatory evidence, deceptive evidence-sharing practices, and violating Crusius’ right to confidential attorney-client communication.
Prosecutors have not yet responded in court to the motion. A gag order issued in July 2020 by 409th District Judge Sam Medrano largely prohibits parties in the case from discussing it outside of the court process.
The motion asks Medrano to allow the defense team to conduct additional discovery – a legal term for finding evidence held by prosecutors – that might provide information on alleged misconduct.
Because of the scope of the alleged misconduct, the judge should consider dismissing the charges against Crusius or prevent the state from seeking the death penalty.
The defense motion acknowledges that, “In general, a trial court cannot preclude the State from seeking the death penalty based on a speculative violation of the defendant’s rights.”
Defense motion 9-9-2024Download
“However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that in certain circumstances, where the State has committed an egregious infraction, the trial court has the power to ameliorate the harm caused with drastic remedies, up to and including dismissing the indictment,” the motion said.
The next hearing in the Walmart mass shooting case is set for Thursday, when Medrano will discuss potential scheduling leading to a trial. Crusius has been ordered to appear at the hearing, which will mark the first time he’s appeared in state court since his arraignment in October 2019.
Crusius pleaded guilty last year to federal hate crimes and weapons charges, and was sentenced to 90 consecutive life terms in prison. The federal system has no parole, so he would spend the rest of his life in prison.
Minutes before the shooting, Crusius posted a racist screed on the internet saying he was acting to “stop the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
Federal prosecutors opted not to seek the death penalty, and Crusius decided to plead guilty days later. The U.S. Justice Department has declined to comment on why it didn’t seek the death penalty, but Assistant U.S. Attorney Ian Hanna said at the sentencing hearing that Crusius had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
This article first appeared on El Paso Matters and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
