The Jury Instructions That Killed the Prosecution's Case

I've been covering trials for years. I've watched prosecutors overreach. I've watched defense attorneys find daylight where none seemed to exist. But I don't think I've ever watched a case where the jury instructions themselves revealed, in plain language, that the prosecution was doomed from the start.

Today, Judge Sid Harle read the charge of the court to the jury in Texas v. Adrian Gonzales. Twenty-nine counts of child endangerment. Twenty-nine children. The first criminal prosecution of a law enforcement officer for the Uvalde school shooting response.

And buried in those instructions is the reason this case should never have gone to trial.

📺 WATCH THE FULL JURY INSTRUCTIONS Judge Instructs Uvalde Jury: Gonzales Not Required to Risk His Own Life

The Instruction That Changes Everything

Listen to what Judge Harle told the jury:

Read that again. Slowly.

The entire prosecution theory is that Adrian Gonzales failed to "engage, distract, or delay the shooter." That he failed to follow his active shooter training by "advancing toward the gunfire." That's what they've argued for ten days. Run toward the gunfire. Engage the threat. That's what he was trained to do.

But the judge just told the jury: he wasn't legally required to do any of that if it meant putting himself in imminent danger.

The shooter had an AR-15. Gonzales had a service pistol. The shooter was inside a school building. Gonzales was outside, receiving fragmented information in a chaotic scene with dozens of other officers, none of whom breached either.

Under what theory of the facts could engaging that shooter NOT have subjected Gonzales to imminent danger of death? The man with the rifle had already killed people. Approaching him was, by definition, approaching imminent danger.

The prosecution asked the jury to convict Gonzales for not running toward a man with an AR-15. The judge told the jury that the law didn't require him to.

That's not a close call. That's a fatal contradiction at the heart of the state's case.

The Mental State Problem

But it gets worse for the prosecution. Look at what else the jury has to find:

And the judge defined each of these. Intentionally means it was his "conscious objective or desire" to place children in danger. Knowingly means he was "aware" his conduct was "reasonably certain" to cause the result. Recklessly means he was "aware of but consciously disregarded" a substantial risk. Even criminal negligence requires that he "ought to be aware" of a risk so substantial that failing to perceive it is a "gross deviation" from ordinary care.

Now think about what we know from the evidence. Gonzales arrived at a scene of chaos. He heard gunshots. A teacher gave him a description and general direction. Radio traffic was confused. Dozens of officers were arriving. No one established command. No one breached for 77 minutes.

In those circumstances, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gonzales consciously chose to endanger children? That he was aware his actions would place them in danger? That he perceived the risk and disregarded it?

Or at minimum, that any ordinary person in his position would have perceived the risk he allegedly failed to perceive?

370 officers responded that day. Nearly 400 by some counts. Every single one of them made the same choice Gonzales made. Not one of them breached those classrooms until BORTAC did it 77 minutes later.

If 370 officers made the same decision, how can the state prove that Gonzales's mental state was a "gross deviation" from what an ordinary person would do? He did exactly what every other ordinary officer did.

The Capability Requirement

There's another instruction the jury received:

Physically and mentally capable.

We've heard testimony about the chaos that day. Fragmented radio communications. Conflicting information about the shooter's location. Officers arriving from multiple agencies with no unified command. Sounds that could have been gunfire or could have been breaching attempts or could have been something else.

Under stress, the human brain struggles to process information. We've heard expert testimony about this. The defense put on witnesses who explained what happens to cognition in high-stress situations. Memory fragments. Time distorts. Decision-making capacity narrows.

Was Gonzales mentally capable of processing all the information and making the split-second decision to breach? The state has to prove he was. And they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a situation where trained tactical officers from the Border Patrol took 77 minutes to make that same decision.

What This Case Was Always About

Here's what I think happened. The Uvalde community was devastated. Families lost children. The law enforcement response was a catastrophic failure at every level. Every investigation confirmed it. The DOJ said lives would have been saved if officers followed protocol.

Someone had to pay. The families deserved accountability. The public demanded it.

But criminal law doesn't work that way. You can't convict someone because a tragedy happened and the public needs someone to blame. You have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that THIS defendant committed THESE elements of THIS crime.

And when you read the jury instructions, when you see what the state actually has to prove, the case falls apart.

Gonzales wasn't required to risk his life. The law says so. The state can't prove his mental state rose to criminal culpability. The evidence suggests 370 other officers made the same assessment. And the state can't prove he was mentally capable of making a different decision in those chaotic seconds.

Could Gonzales have done more? Maybe. Should he have? That's a fair question. Did the law enforcement response fail those children? Absolutely. Does Gonzales bear some moral responsibility for what happened? Families will have their own answers to that.

But moral responsibility isn't criminal guilt. Should have isn't the same as legally required. And a civil lawsuit is different from a criminal prosecution.

The state charged him with 29 counts of child endangerment. They asked a jury to send him to prison. And the jury instructions reveal that the law itself doesn't support the conviction they're seeking.

Why This Matters

My father was prosecuted twice for standing on principle. The first time for protecting attorney-client privilege. The second time for helping people understand their rights from a coffee shop. I watched the system operate. I watched prosecutors overreach. I watched people get crushed by charges that should never have been brought.

This isn't about whether Adrian Gonzales is a good cop or a bad cop. It's not about whether Uvalde families deserve justice. They do. God knows they do.

It's about whether the criminal justice system should be used for accountability that it's not designed to deliver. It's about whether we charge people with crimes because we need someone to blame, or because we can actually prove they committed a crime.

The jury instructions in this case answer that question. The law says Gonzales wasn't required to risk his life. The law requires proof of a culpable mental state the evidence doesn't support. The law demands proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and reasonable doubt is everywhere in this case.

Civil liability? That's another matter entirely. Different standards. Different burdens. Different outcomes possible.

But criminal conviction? Based on what I saw in those jury instructions today?

This case was over before closing arguments began.