Ex-APD Analyst Alleges Retaliation, Unapproved Shooting Report in Civil Trial

A former Austin Police Department forensic analyst who helped investigate a 2021 off-duty police shooting testified in a civil trial Friday that she was retaliated against after reporting her supervisor for falsifying training records to inflate her qualifications.

Sarah Jordan also testified that the investigative report she submitted a few months after the shooting had not been approved by the time she chose to resign over the retaliation two years later.

"They dragged me away from the career I love," Jordan said from the witness stand.

The revelations came on the fifth day of a trial stemming from a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the parents of Alex Gonzales, Jr., who was shot by former Austin police officer Gabriel Gutierrez following a road rage incident between the two men. Both Gutierrez and the Police Department are named defendants.

Gutierrez, who testified at trial earlier this week, has maintained that he only shot Gonzales after the man pointed a gun at him and that he acted in self-defense. Luis Serrato, one of the officers who responded to the 911 call Gutierrez placed after shooting Gonzales, fatally shot Gonzales. The plaintiffs also sued Serrato, but U.S. District Judge Pitman dismissed the officer from the suit after ruling that his use of force was justified.

The plaintiffs called Jordan to testify on Friday because she worked on the shooting investigation — but they were not aware of her work until last week after the city handed over a large trove of investigative records that included her draft report.

The late production of evidence prompted the plaintiffs’ attorneys to file a motion seeking sanctions against the city. Pitman, who is presiding over the trial, granted the motion and ruled that only the plaintiffs could submit into evidence any of the 2,000-plus pages of records included in the late discovery.

From the witness stand, Jordan told the jury that she worked her way up to an analyst position in the department’s firearms unit after 17 years with the organization but resigned in 2023 over what she described as a hostile work environment.

She testified that the hostility began after she accused her former supervisor of falsifying records to make it look like she had more training than she actually did. Jordan said when she reported the supervisor, Police Department leaders reassigned her to a new position.

As part of her work, Jordan conducted a reconstruction of the shooting to help investigators determine the trajectory of the rounds fired by Gutierrez into Gonzales’ vehicle. She also analyzed the three firearms recovered from the scene – Gutierrez’s, Serrato’s and Gonzales’, which was found on the floorboard of his vehicle.

Jordan testified that she submitted a draft version of her report for approval on April 15, 2021. She said from the stand she did not know why the report had not been approved by the time she left in July 2023.

Earlier in the week, plaintiffs’ attorneys pointed to the lack of a shooting reconstruction as evidence of the Police Department’s deficient investigation into the shooting. Steve Chancellor, an expert witness who reviews police investigations, testified Monday that such reconstructions were "absolutely critical" in homicide investigations.

After her transfer, Jordan said her former colleagues made her feel isolated and like they were trying to push her out of the department. Jordan considered her colleagues’ behavior to be retaliation for reporting her former supervisor, who she did not name, and filed a report with the Police Department’s Human Resources office.

Jordan said the office "did nothing."

"After suffering through almost a year of retaliation, I couldn’t take it anymore and made the decision to resign," she said.

Austin Police Department officials did not respond to requests for comments about Jordan’s claims.

Jordan was the 12th witness called by the plaintiffs who are expected to rest their case early next week.

Other witnesses included Brian Nenno, the officer who confronted Gonzales alongside Serrato but chose not to open fire when Gonzales kept reaching into the rear passenger side of his vehicle after the officers ordered him to halt. Gonzales’ infant son was in the back seat, but the officers had not seen the baby at the time.

Under examination from plaintiffs’ attorney Timothy Devlin, Nenno testified that his decision not to fire was influenced by the blood he saw on Gonzales’ head and that the man was stumbling. (An official autopsy showed that one of Gutierrez’s rounds had hit Gonzales on the side of his head.)

Devlin also asked Nenno about something he told a special investigations unit detective after the shooting. In deposition testimony, Nenno recalled saying initially that Gonzales "could have been reaching for anything."

"'Anything' is very broad," the detective responded, according to Nenno.

When the detective asked if the officer could clarify, Nenno changed his statement to say that Gonzales could have been reaching for a gun.

The trial is expected to continue through next week.