A lot to discuss and to do that,
we are joined by two prominent Austin
attorneys, Adam Lowey and Brad Vinson.
Thank you both so much for joining us.
So we had all been talking
throughout the course of this
trial and I just want to ask Ad,
I'll start with you.
Were you surprised by the
jury's verdict today? I
was very surprised.
The state had a very high burden here.
This was a very difficult case d
the jury was out for almost 2 days and
to come back with a guilty findg
on murder was a surprise to me.
And it's a big win by the state and it's
a big win by the District Attor.
And the thing that I keep thinking about
is this question, should Daniel Perry
have testified in his own defen?
That was a very difficult decisn
for the defense to make.
During trial.
They decided not to have him testify.
But I think in this county,
a jury wants to hear from a pern
who is claiming self-defense,
and they want him to swear an oath and
explain why he felt he was in danger.
And I think in retrospect,
it was a big mistake not to put
him on the stand.
Right. I want to ask you what in your
mind were sort of the turning ps
or the pivotal moments in this ?
Sure. I think the turning momenn
this case is the text messages and the
social media posts of Daniel Pe.
I think they changed the entire trial.
I think you look at the facts
alone the jury is able to come .
Some reasonable doubt based
on where the car is at,
the position of the protesters,
the position of Garrett Foster,
the position of his arms and
whether he raised the gun or no,
and whether or not Perry had
the right to act in selfdefense.
But when you bring those messages in,
it gives the jurors exactly
what every juror wants.
What was going on inside his hed
at the time that this happened,
and that to them is what was gog
on his head that he that he had
almost put himself in this posi.
At least I think that's what
the jury came to
and the state put forth some of
those messages I just want to s.
One of them was quote, I might have to
kill a few people on my way to .
They are rioting outside my apartment.
Another one said, quote,
I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.
Adam, do you agree that that those messages,
which by the way some of the messages
were public social media posed?
But others were were messages
on Facebook Messenger.
So reminder, by the way,
that we are all responsible
for anything we write,
even if we think it may not be public.
But Adam,
do you similarly feel that that
was a turning point in this cas?
Without a doubt.
And I think that's going to be a very
big appellate issue as to whethr
those messages should have come.
But Judge Brown's a very good j.
He decided to let them in.
And I think he's correct.
I think that at the end of the ,
the jury wants to be able
to tell itself a story.
So when the state presents this and say,
look, this guy was looking for a fight,
this guy was looking for trouble to shoot
protesters, and this is what happened.
I think the jury believed it.
And then going back to my original point,
I think it was incumbent upon Dl
Perry to take the stand and tryo
explain those and more importany
explain I was in danger for my
life when I turn on Congress.
And I think that's what sunk him eventually,
Brad, we know that from the woro
from the moment that this happe.
That this case has been highly political,
highly politicized. Of course,
we're talking about a social justice,
black Lives Matter protest.
There's also the issue of the right to
carry openly here in the state of Texas.
But I wanted to ask you,
you know, at the end of the day,
we saw a lot of a lot of discusn
on social media out in the community.
But it's a reminder for all of ,
again, too, that at the end of the day,
what really matters are those 12
men and women in the jury box.
That's right. It's the most powl
thing that we have in the justice system.
I frequently tell juries that they're the
most powerful people in the courtroom,
more powerful than the prosecut,
the defense attorney or the jud.
They're there to decide a person's fate.
They uphold our entire system. Right.
And I think you and I had discud
the fact that This is why juries
exist for these exact cases when
you have facts this close.
And neither side can figure out
which way this thing is going t.
That's why a trial happens.
A trial happens because neither
side has a slam dunk case.
There are issues on both sides that are
good and bad that a jury has to decide,
and that's what happened today.
But Adam, we have certainly come a long
way from the lead detective in this case,
essentially determining on his own based
on his investigation that he believed that
the shooting was an act of self-defense,
that it was justified.
We've come a long way from a bak
and forth about whether or not.
Say Garza and his administration
presented a fair case to the grand jury.
What do you make of all the
politics around this case? Agai?
Given what happened in the months preceding
it and the jury's decision todaI
think Brad's correct that all the stuff
running up to a jury trial is important.
But at the end of the day,
when you put 12 people in a box,
they're going to hear a set of
stories and they're going to
believe one side or the other.
And in this case,
after the liberating for almost 2 days.
They believed what the state was
saying and so I was very surprid
that they basically disregarded
Detective Pugets conclusion.
But that's why we have juries.
They are able to look at all ofe
evidence and make their own determination
to get into the legal weeds
a little bit here, Brad,
what do you make of the fact th?
They found him guilty on the murder charge,
but not guilty on the ag assault charge.
How how do you make sense of th?
Right. You know, I think that
when you're looking at that,
I think it also says it also
tells us why the state didn't go
for a felony murder trial, righ.
Because they they didn't go wite
angle that Foster was at any pot
acting in defense of the crowd. Right.
And and I think that that is shown by
the jury's verdict on the not gy
regarding the Ag assault deadly weapon.
I I think that the jury is signg
that he's he's there at that mot
for the purpose that he was the,
which was to commit murder and not to
run people over but that he came there
looking to antagonize the situa.
That's what the jury decided and to talk
about the politics that you were discussing.
I I think that I I guess that te
question has to be asked why was a PD
investigating the case in the 1st place,
right when you have a demonstran
you have a protest that is voic.
Their their opinion and negative
feelings about a PD,
someone is shot and killed and then a PD
is the lead investigative force in that.
I think in order to have absolvd
themselves and and helped, you ,
stay clear of the situation,
they should have allowed another agency
to come in and investigate this case.
Certainly one reason we have trs
is to gauge community sentiment
on a number of different issues
and and crimes in our community.
This is the first trial
that we've had in Austin,
the first significant trial.
We have had some trials in recent months,
but the first high profile tria,
do you make any assessments
atom or determinations about
what this may or may not say?
About juror sentiment in our community,
particularly as it relates to the idea
of using deadly force against someone,
it's particularly important as we look
toward police officers who've been indicted.
Yes, I believe there's been a very big
shift in the past about seven y,
starting with the Black Lives Mr
movement going into summer 2020 to this day,
in which, when I started my career here,
it was almost impossible to hold a police
officer criminally or civilly liable.
For their conduct, that has cha.
We have seen some very big civil verdicts.
We have seen police officers indicted
by the grand jury and we are abt
to see criminal trials happen.
And I think when I look at this
parried verdict tonight and I tk
about these upcoming police tri,
I think anything could possibly happen.
I think juries here are going to
evaluate the cases on the facts,
and if the state can prove thata
police officer committed a crim,
they will be held accountable.
But if the defense can prove
it was not a crime,
I believe the police officer will walk.
But unlike other decades,
it is totally fair game that
anything could happen in these cases.
Right now,
Brad, in just a few weeks,
we're going to see Austin police
officer Christopher Taylor stand trial
and in the death of Michael Ram,
a very significant high
profile local police case.
As you look to the future,
can you take anything that
that happened today?
And, you know,
potentially apply that to what y
or may not happen in that case.
Sure. And I think it it piggys
back off of off of what Adam sa,
that the juries are willing
to make tough decisions.
The juries are making decisions
based on the facts and they're t
allowing people in their positions to
influence their decisions when they're
making those conclusions, right.
I think that that case is going to be
just as heavily charged as this,
right, if maybe more so.
We're going to have to see
what the video looks like.
Did did Ramos speed towards
the officers or not?
That could be the deciding fact,
and if the jury gets to see tha,
depending on what happens there
could change the verdict in the case.
We've also got the de Silva case
coming up after Ramos as well.
Officer Taylor was involved in
the shooting of both of those
individuals under circumstances
in which he hasn't been indicted
for murder in both of those cas.
I think that that's pretty significant
that you have an officer who has
shot and killed two people in ls
than a year and been indicted fr
murder in both of those cases.
And I hope that the jury finds e
right answer in both of those c,
evaluates the evidence and comes
to the right conclusion.
And just as a point there,
you represent the de Silva
family in a civil civil case.
That is correct. We are currenty
representing the de Silva
family in a case against APD.
I want to ask both of you just n
closing Judge Brown, Judge Cliff Brown,
who has been on the bench a numr
of years here in Travis County,
will assess the penalty for Daniel Perry.
He will decide if he goes
to prison and for how long.
What is he thinking this
weekend as he looks at well,
he has seen the evidence,
but what are the factors in botf
your minds that he will conside?
And and if you had to make
some sort of estimation, what,
what kind of possible prison sentence
could Daniel Perry be looking a?
Well,
Judge Brown is one of the best judges
in Travis County. He's very fai.
He will look at all of the evid.
One thing to keep in mind is that these
social media posts that were entered into
evidence were not all of the evidence.
Judge Brown kept a lot of them .
But importantly,
Judge Brown saw all of them.
So I can't imagine that doesn't
influence his decision somewhat.
If I had to guess, and it's only a guess,
I think he will sentence Perry
to 20 to 30 years in prison.
And then I think the appellate fight begins.
It's always a scale whenever a e
or a jury is deciding punishmen.
And the idea of going to the
judge is that a judge has seen
thousands and thousands of case,
whereas a jury, this could haven
the only case they've ever seen.
So the idea is that the judge wl
cut a middle difference a little
bit better than a jury would.
And I think that was the
calculation by the defense.
And going with the judge,
should they lose,
I think he probably land
somewhere around 40 years.
And I think that it's based on the same
weight as in any criminal case prior.
You know,
does he have prior criminal his?
What was the level of culpable mental intent,
right.
If he had been going above and
beyond doing even more than juse
social post for weeks leading u,
had a plan written out,
those are more kind of cold blo,
you know, type thoughts, right,
and should be probably punished more.
So I think that he lands somewhere around 40,
but he takes into into fact all
of the social posts as well.
Brad Vinson and Adam Lowey,
thank you both so much for your
thoughts on this really important case.
Appreciate you coming in. Thank.