A federal judge in Fort Worth fined three defense attorneys in the July 4 Prairieland Detention Center shooting case Jan. 14 for filing “frivolous” motions attempting to obtain evidence from prosecutors.
After a hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman ordered Patrick McLain, Brian Bouffard and Bradley Sauer — attorneys for defendant Zachary Evetts — to pay $500 each for their “sharp-elbow drafting” of repeated motions in the case, in what he said were violations of state rules for attorney conduct.
The motions accused the government of stonewalling Evetts’ attorneys as they attempt to obtain and review evidence ahead of the Feb. 17 trial in the case. The prosecution and defense are legally required to share all evidence that will be presented at trial with the other side in a case.
Pittman’s order also accused the attorneys of falsely casting doubt on the prosecutors’ integrity and misrepresenting communications between the parties. In one of their motions, Evetts’ attorneys omitted an email from the government responding to one request — explaining that the defense counsel’s demands for evidence were moot or sought materials outside the scope of criminal rules for discovery.
Evetts’ attorneys say the omission was a mistake. McLain, Evetts' lead counsel, told KERA News in a phone call Tuesday that while he and his co-counsel stand by the accuracy of their requests for Pittman to enforce the rules of discovery against the government, as outlined in a scheduling order, his team respects the judge’s authority.
“We are, of course, going to honor his decision, and we're going to proceed forward to trial, ready to advocate on behalf of Mr. Evetts and argue for his acquittal on the charges against him in this case,” McLain said.
KERA News reached out to the Justice Department and the assistant U.S. attorneys on the case and will update this story with any response.
Members of the DFW Support Committee — a group of the defendants’ family and friends — who were at the hearing accused Pittman in a press release of “bullying” Evetts’ attorney into agreeing his request was frivolous. The group pointed out that two years ago, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Pittman abused his discretion by fining two lawyers for submitting declarations instead of notarized affidavits.
“The fate of the defendants—and the result of this trial—will have enormous impacts on the legal terrain for those resisting ICE terror and the course of the rising authoritarianism in the U.S.,” the committee said. “As such, the fairness of this trial should be an acute concern for all.”
Pittman declined to comment.
Evetts, 36, is one of 19 people arrested on a slew of state and federal charges for a July 4 shooting at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado. Court records allege about a dozen people began shooting fireworks toward the immigration detention center and vandalizing structures before Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross arrived.
Then a person began firing from the woods at the officer and correctional staff, hitting the officer in the back or neck, according to court records. Evetts and eight others will go on trial for charges including attempted murder of federal employees, providing material support to terrorists and using an explosive during a riot, among other charges.
The government alleges the defendants are part of a “North Texas Antifa Cell” that planned the shooting as a “coordinated attack” on law enforcement. Defendants, their family and friends say the incident was planned as a noise demonstration meant to protest President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and support those detained inside Prairieland.
Assistant U.S. attorneys Shawn Smith, Frank Gatto and Matthew Capoccia have provided the defense with five terabytes of evidence, according to court records, and they say they’re working to fulfill the defense’s discovery requests.
McLain, Bouffard and Sauer, whom Evetts hired, have filed motions throughout the case to get more specific evidence and information on the charges against Evetts and to exclude politically charged evidence — like mentions of “antifa” — from the record. The attorneys allege the government isn’t complying with its discovery duties.
“Labeling a defense motion as frivolous and raising the specter of sanctions, before having a full and complete hearing, chills effective advocacy in this case, as in most criminal cases, in which the defense is outgunned, undermanned, and underfunded compared to the government counsel,” Evetts’ attorneys wrote in a brief challenging the proposed sanctions.
But nearly a week after the sanctions hearing, McLain said he and his team understand the court is doing its best given the complexity of the case.
"Just as the court expects the defense counsel to adhere to its order, we expect opposing counsel to adhere to the court's scheduling order," McLain told KERA News. "And if we believe that there is a matter we cannot resolve between counsel, we will bring it to the attention of the court."
Toluwani Osibamowo is KERA’s law and justice reporter. Got a tip? Email Toluwani at tosibamowo@kera.org.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
