Austin Star Police Detective Accuses DA Jose Garza's Office of Criminal Witness Tampering in High-Profile Case
Now, the lead detective in the Perry case is accusing District Attorney Garza of witness tampering in order to obtain the indictment. That detective is David Fugitt, the veteran APD officer known for solving so many cases. He has filed an affidavit in the case that clearly and unequivocally points the finger at Garza.
In the affidavit, which PJ Media has obtained, Detective Fugitt says:'
Detective Fugitt elaborates:
Fugitt accuses the district attorney’s office of engaging in unethical and criminal behavior.
Now, the lead detective in the Perry case is accusing District Attorney Garza of witness tampering in order to obtain the indictment. That detective is David Fugitt, the veteran APD officer known for solving so many cases. He has filed an affidavit in the case that clearly and unequivocally points the finger at Garza.
In the affidavit, which PJ Media has obtained, Detective Fugitt says:'
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.
Detective Fugitt elaborates:
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.
Fugitt accuses the district attorney’s office of engaging in unethical and criminal behavior.