In blistering motion, state seeks limited gag order in Taylor murder trial

In a blistering motion filed last week, the Travis County District Attorney’s Office requested a limited gag order in the trial of Austin Police Officer Christopher Taylor. Taylor is charged with murder in the 2020 shooting of Mike Ramos.

“The state respectfully requests that the court grant the state’s motion and find that pretrial publicity, including defense counsel’s public statements and posts, could cause imminent and irreparable harm to the judicial process that will deprive the litigants of a just resolution in this case,” Travis County District Attorney José Garza writes in the motion.

The motion requests Travis County District Judge Dayna Blazey bar the prosecution, the defense and their respective staff members from releasing any public statements, including on social media, concerning:

– The character, reputation or “prior bad acts” of the defendant or any attorney for the state of Texas.

– Allegations of corruption and grand jury manipulation regarding the state’s prosecution of the defendant and law enforcement officers in general.

– Any opinion as to the evidence or process used in the state’s grand jury presentation.

Garza argues in the motion that the limited gag order is necessary due to a “concerted public campaign (by Taylor’s attorneys) over the last few years to denigrate” the district attorney’s office. That effort, Garza claims, is to insinuate that the office’s prosecutions of law enforcement officers are politically motivated and lack probable cause.

The motion points to statements made by Taylor’s attorneys, Doug O’Connell and Ken Ervin, that slammed the indictment and accused Garza and the district attorney’s office of anti-police bias.

“Today’s indictment is not justice; it is the fulfillment of a campaign talking point and yet more evidence of anti-police bias,” Ervin and O’Connell told The New York Times in April 2021. The Times article is part of the exhibits included in the state’s motion.

Garza also accuses the defense counsel of “flouting” Texas law concerning the secrecy of grand jury proceedings in the case.

“In response, TCDAO has consistently maintained that all indictments – including Taylor’s – have been supported by probable cause and fair and balanced grand jury presentations. TCDAO has further maintained that, as a regular practice in its officer-involved cases, counsel are offered the opportunity to submit material for the grand jury’s consideration,” the motion reads.

It continues, “This is a courtesy that TCDAO extends though it has no obligation to do so as a prosecutor has no legal duty to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.”

As the motion notes, the constitutional standard for gag orders in a judicial proceeding requires that it be narrowly tailored, that there be “imminent and irreparable” harm to the proceedings without one, and that the order represents the least restrictive means to prevent that harm.

“Especially in light of counsel’s stated intent to file a motion for change of venue, counsel’s unrelenting campaign of publicly speaking in a prejudicial manner about the case and accusing the District Attorney of corruption and manipulation of the grand jury merits the extraordinary measure of issuing a limited gag order,” Garza writes. “Taylor’s counsel have demonstrated an ongoing pattern and practice of making public statements denigrating TCDAO, the state’s case against Taylor, and the entire criminal justice system in Travis County. Counsel’s remarks – targeting social media, print media, television, and even radio – are likely to reach prospective jurors in some form or fashion.”

If Taylor’s defense is allowed to continue its public comments, Garza argues, the court would be facilitating “counsel to potentially taint the jury pool while seeking a change of venue due to a tainted jury pool. Counsel’s misinformation campaign will make the task of finding qualified jurors harder.”

The Austin Monitor has reached out to the defense counsel for comment.

Photo made available through a Creative Commons license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.