The Trial Begins: First Uvalde Officer Faces 29 Counts

Today, in a courtroom in Corpus Christi, Texas, the names of 21 people were read aloud. Nineteen children. Two teachers. All killed at Robb Elementary School on May 24, 2022.

And for the first time, a law enforcement officer stood accused of failing to protect them.

Adrian Gonzales, a former Uvalde school district police officer, pleaded not guilty to 29 counts of child endangerment. Twenty-nine. One for each of the 19 children killed, and one for each of the 10 children who survived in those classrooms.

That's the state's theory. That's what they read aloud in court today. Gonzales was the first officer on scene. He heard the gunshots. A witness told him where the shooter was heading and what he was wearing. According to prosecutors, he had time to act before the gunman entered classrooms 111 and 112.

He had active shooter training. He had taught that training to other officers just two months earlier. A course called "Stop the Killing: Solo Response to Active Shooter Events."

Prosecutors allege he did not stop anything.

Why This Case Matters

Nearly 400 law enforcement officers responded to Robb Elementary that day. For 77 minutes, children called 911 while officers waited in the hallway. Body cameras captured officers checking their phones. Sanitizing their hands. Retreating from gunfire.

Of those 400 officers, only two face criminal charges. Gonzales and former Chief Pete Arredondo. That's it.

The legal question here is genuinely difficult. Can a police officer be criminally liable for failing to act? The U.S. Supreme Court has said police generally have no constitutional duty to protect specific individuals. But Texas law may impose different obligations, especially for school district officers hired specifically to protect children.

This prosecution is unprecedented in Texas. No officer has ever been criminally charged under the child endangerment statute for failing to act during an active shooter event. The defense will argue the law was never intended for this. The prosecution will argue it applies to anyone with a duty to protect children who fails that duty.

Both sides have a point. That's what makes this a trial worth watching.

The Parkland Shadow

There's only one direct precedent, and it doesn't favor the prosecution. In 2023, Scot Peterson, the school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, was acquitted of all charges related to his response to that shooting. He stayed outside while 17 people were killed inside. The jury found him not guilty.

Uvalde prosecutors have to do what Florida prosecutors couldn't: convince a jury that failing to confront an active shooter is a crime.

But there are differences. Peterson was outside the building. Gonzales was inside, by his own admission. Peterson never identified the shooter's location. Gonzales was told directly. Peterson hadn't recently taught active shooter training. Gonzales had, two months earlier.

Whether those differences matter is up to the jury.

▶️ WATCH NOW Uvalde Trial Begins: First Officer Charged Pleads Not Guilty to 29 Counts

What We're Watching

This is the work my father was criminally convicted for doing. Explaining the law. Watching the system. Making sure it operates fairly for everyone involved, including the defendant.

Adrian Gonzales is presumed innocent. He is entitled to a fair trial. The state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Those protections exist for a reason, and we will honor them throughout this coverage.

But the families of 21 people are also entitled to see the system work. To see whether anyone will be held accountable for the failures that day. To see whether the law applies to those who wear badges.

Both things can be true. We can demand accountability and protect due process at the same time. That's the whole point.

We'll be here every day of this trial. Opening statements begin today.