The State's Case is Collapsing

I watched something remarkable happen in court today. The prosecution called two witnesses. One was a grieving mother. The other was a PTSD expert. Neither of them offered a single piece of evidence about what Adrian Gonzales did or didn't do on May 24, 2022.

And then the state's own expert handed the defense the keys to reasonable doubt.

Emotion Over Evidence

The first witness was the mother of Chloe, a 10-year-old survivor from Room 112. Her daughter still has bullet fragments in her forehead and left thigh. They can't be removed. She gets headaches. Her leg hurts when she walks too far.

It's devastating testimony. It's heartbreaking. It's real.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether Adrian Gonzales committed the crime he's charged with.

The prosecution didn't ask this mother a single question about Gonzales. Not what he did. Not what he didn't do. Not where he was. Not what she saw. Nothing. They brought her to the stand, made her relive the worst day of her life, and offered the jury... emotion.

That's not evidence. That's manipulation.

The Expert Who Destroyed Her Own Side

Then came Jennifer Havy, a licensed professional counselor who treats Uvalde survivors. The prosecution called her to explain PTSD, to describe the ongoing trauma these children face, to make the jury feel the weight of what happened.

And then defense attorney Jason Goss stood up for cross-examination.

What followed was a masterclass in turning a prosecution witness into a defense witness. Goss got Havy to admit:

Trauma affects memory. People who experience traumatic events don't accurately recall what happened. They mix up the order of events. They experience auditory exclusion, not hearing things that happened right next to them. They experience time compression, where seconds feel like minutes or minutes feel like seconds.

And here's the kill shot: A person can be "absolutely sure" of something, completely certain they saw what they saw, and video evidence can prove it didn't happen that way.

Think about what that means for this case. The prosecution has been calling witnesses who were present during the shooting. Officers. Teachers. People who saw what happened. And now their own expert has told the jury that traumatic stress makes such testimony unreliable. That witnesses can be completely sincere and completely wrong at the same time.

The defense didn't even have to say it themselves. The state did it for them.

Due Process is Not Optional

Here's what bothers me about today's testimony. The state is trying to win this case on emotion, not evidence.

They're putting grieving parents on the stand who can't tell the jury anything about the defendant's actions. They're showing pictures of injured children. They're describing the ongoing trauma. And none of it answers the question the jury has to answer: Did Adrian Gonzales commit the specific crime he's charged with?

This is a child endangerment case. The state has to prove that Gonzales, by his actions or omissions, placed children in imminent danger of death or bodily harm. That's the legal standard. That's what they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Showing the jury that children were harmed doesn't prove Gonzales caused or contributed to that harm. Showing the jury that survivors have PTSD doesn't prove Gonzales violated his duty. Emotion is not evidence. Sympathy is not proof.

And when you try to convict someone based on how the jury feels instead of what the evidence shows, you're violating due process. You're asking the jury to punish someone for a tragedy, not for a crime they committed.

My father understood this. He defended people who were hated, people the community wanted to punish regardless of what the evidence showed. He taught me that the constitutional protections exist precisely for those cases. When emotions run highest, when the pressure to convict is strongest, that's when due process matters most.

What's Left of This Case?

Think about where the prosecution stands after six days of testimony:

Their training witness established that Gonzales followed his training and never took the advanced course that covers the standard they're charging him under.

Their PTSD expert just told the jury that witness testimony from traumatic events is unreliable.

Their victim witnesses have offered emotional impact but no evidence of what Gonzales specifically did wrong.

I'm starting to wonder if the defense will even need to put on a case. The prosecution is doing the work for them.

▶️ WATCH NOW Prosecution Destroys Its Own Case With PTSD Expert

Adrian Gonzales is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. He's entitled to be convicted based on evidence, not emotion. He's entitled to due process.

The state chose to bring these charges. They have the burden of proof. And right now, they're not meeting it. They're trying to make the jury so sad, so angry, so desperate for someone to pay that they'll convict regardless of whether the evidence supports it.

That's not justice. That's a lynching with legal paperwork.

Watch the testimony yourself. Watch the defense cross-examination. Watch the prosecution's own expert explain why you can't trust witness testimony from traumatic events. And then ask yourself: Is this case being tried on evidence, or on grief?

The answer matters. Not just for Gonzales. For all of us.