Travis County indictment crisis: From 263 missed deadlines to zero

The number of Travis County felony defendants held in jail beyond the 90-day deadline for prosecutors to secure indictments has fallen sharply amid sustained scrutiny and a new state-mandated reporting rule that took effect on Sept. 1.

The course correction followed a months-long investigation by the American-Statesman and KVUE-TV that found the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, led by DA José Garza, had repeatedly missed the state-mandated indictment deadline — with serious consequences: the release of potentially dangerous defendants; deportations before trials; delays in justice for victims; and possible violations of defendants’ rights that exposed the county to legal liability.

"It was valid criticism of what was going on," Rick Flores, president of the Austin Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said. "We are not showing up to court now five, six, seven times just to be told that a case is unindicted, where everybody is pretty frustrated about it."

The Statesman and KVUE reported that Garza’s office missed the deadline to indict jailed defendants 263 times in 2024. Since June, no defendant has remained jailed more than 90 days without an indictment, according to the latest Statesman-KVUE analysis of court data.

Garza never publicly acknowledged the missed deadlines as a problem, even as judges and defense attorneys blamed the recurring issue on internal breakdowns they said did not exist under previous district attorneys. At one point, Garza asserted—to the dismay of judges and attorneys—that prosecutors faced no indictment deadline.

At the same time, however, Garza’s office began adopting measures to ensure that "instances in which cases are not indicted remain a rare occurrence," according to a March statement provided to the Statesman and KVUE.

Garza declined an interview request for this story. In response to written questions about how he addressed the issue, his office issued a statement that did not mention the missed deadlines.

"Over the last five years, the Travis County District Attorney’s Office has worked to ensure that our criminal justice system works for everyone," the statement said. "We are proud of our record and grateful to have the support of our community."

Longstanding Legal Requirement

Under a 1977 state law, prosecutors have 90 days to secure an indictment or a suspect must be released on a bond they can afford. The safeguard is meant to ensure no one languishes in jail while a case stalls.

Experts note that prosecutors in other Texas counties have also struggled to meet the deadline at times, though they say the problem is not widespread statewide.

In Travis County, attention intensified in February when Garza’s office missed the deadline to indict two murder defendants, leading to their release on sharply reduced bonds. One was later rearrested; the other remains free.

Garza initially blamed a lone prosecutor, but the lapses soon proved systemic.

"It should be readily apparent to all of you that this is not a one-off situation, that there are multiple cases where this is happening, specifically in Travis County," attorney Brian Erskine, who represented the men, told reporters outside a February hearing.

On that same day, the Statesman and KVUE found 26 defendants with 63 cases jailed beyond the 90-day window. Among them: a man charged with a third DWI who had been held 224 days — more than seven months — without indictment. Garza said prosecutors were waiting on out-of-state records of his prior arrests. Within days, the man pleaded to a misdemeanor and was released with credit for time served.

Two weeks after public attention intensified, the number of jailed defendants without indictments dropped to seven. By early April, only two defendants remained past the deadline; by May, just one. Since June, none have.

Garza’s course correction comes as the Texas Judicial Council, the policymaking body for the state’s judiciary, began requiring judges this month to report publicly how often they lower defendants’ bonds because prosecutors failed to indict within 90 days.

Two Republican lawmakers proposed similar reporting requirements during this year’s legislative session, but those measures failed to pass.

Council spokesperson Megan LaVoie said the new reporting was part of longstanding bail reform efforts, noting judges had pushed for a tool to show how often they had to reduce bonds because of missed indictments.

"The council has studied the issue of bail and bail reform for the past 10 years, so this is just a piece of that," she said.

What Changed in the DA’s Office

Defense attorneys and judges told the Statesman in March that the problem appeared to stem from a Garza reorganization. Instead of relying on a specialized unit that handled indictments within 90 days, Garza reassigned those prosecutors to other duties and placed the responsibility on already overloaded trial prosecutors.

Earlier this year, Garza said the office created new oversight measures, including internal alerts for cases nearing the deadline, with supervisors also notified. He has also partially restored the indictment unit, according to defense lawyers.

‘Lives Are Not in Limbo’

In recent months, defense attorneys have said the 90-day lapses provided a window into broader management concerns in the district attorney’s office, including shifting policies and a lack of continuity among prosecutors.

However, several have told the Statesman they have since noticed a change in Garza’s oversight of cases concerning the 90-day requirement.

"What we are seeing is that cases are being indicted a lot quicker than this administration previously did," Flores said. "It is a good thing that they are looking at cases earlier, not only to make sure that cases move forward, but so that people and witnesses and victims, their lives are not in limbo."

Keith Lauerman, a defense attorney critical of how Garza’s office handled indictments, said he often worried that clients released on reduced bonds would reoffend or retaliate against potential witnesses.

He also worried about others remaining in jail for 90 days with weak or insufficient evidence.

Lauerman said the situation has improved.

"Things have calmed down since the reporting on it," he said. "I think they have made some headway, and that is a good thing."