Trial Begins Over 2021 Austin Police Shooting, Alleging Officer Misconduct and Botched Probe

On the first day of a civil trial that will determine whether an off-duty Austin police officer’s shooting of a civilian was unjustified – and enabled by a lax disciplinary culture at the Austin Police Department – plaintiffs’ attorneys accused the officer, Gabriel Gutierrez, of making false or misleading statements and the Police Department of failing to adequately investigate the incident.

The case centers on the 2021 death of Alex Gonzales Jr., who was shot by Gutierrez and then fatally shot by responding officer Luis Serrato following a road rage incident. In a federal lawsuit against Gutierrez and the city of Austin, Gonzales’ parents argue that Gutierrez was unjustified in shooting Gonzales and that he was encouraged to do so because the Police Department was unlikely to discipline him.

Claims of this nature against municipalities rarely go to trial but in March, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman allowed the case to proceed based on sufficient evidence presented by the plaintiffs. He did, however, dismiss claims against Serrato, saying the officer’s use of force was justified based on what he knew at the time.

Gutierrez has claimed that he shot Gonzales in self-defense because the man was brandishing a gun, which is a key point of dispute in the case. That part of the interaction was not caught on video though Police Department investigators found a gun in Gonzales’ vehicle that was loaded but had no bullet in the chamber.

Donald Puckett, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, told the jury Monday in his opening statement that Gutierrez "was not only responsible for the bullets he fired, but also for the bullets he caused Serrato to fire." Puckett argued that because Gutierrez told the 911 operator that Gonzales was armed but failed to disclose that he was the one who shot Gonzales, Gutierrez created a situation where Serrato could have reasonably thought Gonzales represented an active threat.

But Gutierrez's attorney, Albert Lopez, argued during his opening statement that the jury should focus on the off-duty officer’s claim that he faced imminent bodily harm and made the split-second decision to use lethal force.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police officers’ use of force is justified if they "reasonably believe" they are facing an imminent threat.

"If you believe Officer Gutierrez that there was a gun pulled on him," Lopez told jurors, "then you must believe he faced an imminent threat and his use of force was justified."

Assistant City Attorney Gray Laird told jurors that the plaintiffs’ contention that the Police Department did not take the subsequent investigation seriously was untrue. He said that former police chiefs Joseph Chacon and Robin Henderson – the two individuals who led the Police Department during the shooting and subsequent investigation – had decades of law enforcement experience and took their "obligation" to investigate police shootings seriously. Chacon and Henderson both are expected to testify in the trial, which may last up to two weeks.

"This was not some sham investigation," Laird told jurors. "There is no evidence that the city or Police Department had a policy or practice of not disciplining officers for [excessive force]."

Just ahead of the trial, plaintiffs landed a notable legal win on a matter that Puckett leaned on heavily in his opening statement and questioning of the plaintiffs’ first witness.

The attorney revealed to the jury that, six days before the trial began, the city turned over a large trove of investigative records that plaintiffs requested in 2023. The last-minute disclosure, Puckett said, raised questions about the quality of the city’s investigation into the incident.

Among the 2,200 pages of records was a draft report of a reconstruction of Gutierrez shooting Gonzales. The plaintiffs’ first witness, Steve Chancellor, a law enforcement expert who specializes in reviewing police detective homicide investigations, said such reconstructions are an "absolutely critical" piece of analysis in homicide investigations.

That’s because they can show the positions of individuals involved in shootings and help confirm or rebut statements made by witnesses or people involved in shootings, he said.

Laird, the city attorney, did not provide an explanation to the jury about why the documents were not disclosed to the plaintiffs until the eve of trial.

Last Thursday, June 19, Puckett’s team filed an emergency motion asking the court to sanction the defendants for the late disclosure, which they argued would be "highly prejudicial to the plaintiffs."

Judge Pitman approved the motion on Friday following jury selection and ruled that the plaintiffs would have full control over what portions of the investigative records are submitted as evidence at trial.