The trial of a former Uvalde school district police officer accused of failing to act during the 2022 mass shooting that killed 19 students and two teachers was thrown into early turmoil on its first day when unexpected witness testimony prompted a judge to dismiss the jury and investigate the proceedings. Adrian Gonzales, 52, was charged with 29 counts of child endangerment for allegedly not engaging the gunman and failing to follow active-shooter training as nearly 400 officers waited outside Robb Elementary School before confronting the shooter.
Prosecutors allege Gonzales did not use his training to engage, distract or delay the attacker, even after he was informed of the gunman’s location, contributing to the delayed response that allowed the attack to unfold. Teachers and children had made repeated calls to emergency services from inside the classroom, and hundreds of responding officers faced scrutiny for the prolonged breach delay. Gonzales has pleaded not guilty and his defence maintains he acted as best he could under chaotic conditions, including calling for assistance and helping evacuate some children once their whereabouts were known.
The trial was relocated to Corpus Christi, Texas, after defence arguments that Gonzales could not receive an impartial trial in Uvalde, illustrating legal sensitivity around venue and community sentiment in high-profile cases tied to law enforcement conduct. The unexpected testimony from a former teacher, which had not been disclosed to the defence before court, led to a temporary dismissal of the jury while prosecutors and defence counsel address objections and procedural questions about evidence disclosure.
Under Texas law, each count Gonzales faces carries a potential maximum sentence of two years in prison, although juries historically show reluctance to convict law enforcement officers for inaction under order-of-events claims. The disruption highlights intricate legal challenges in prosecuting officers for decisions made during active-shooter events, underscoring unresolved questions about evidence disclosure protocols, trial fairness and how courts calibrate accountability in policing failures without prejudicing defendants or undermining judicial standards.
