A Denton County jury found ex-Denton officer Joel Weinstein guilty Wednesday of tampering with an arrest affidavit, the first case in a larger Denton Police Department investigation to go to trial.
Weinstein, 44, was indicted for intentionally tampering with a probable cause affidavit in the Sept. 6, 2023, arrest of a Denton resident.
Several current and former Denton Police Department members attended the trial in support of Weinstein, and a few shed tears upon the guilty tampering verdict.
It was previously reported that Weinstein’s tampering was not investigated until after two other officers’ conduct came into question on Feb. 5, 2025.
On that date, the Denton County District Attorney’s Office notified the Denton Police Department that it was declining charges in an unrelated case involving Denton officers William Hulslander and Ronald Foy.
The DA’s office expressed concerns that affidavits Hulslander prepared did not reflect what was depicted on Hulslander and Foy’s body-worn camera footage of an arrest.
The DA’s office then expressed concerns about Weinstein’s sworn affidavit in an unrelated arrest of another individual.
Weinstein had left the department on March 3, 2025, to work at the Collin County Sheriff’s Office. This was after the department began investigating Hulslander and Foy but before it discovered Weinstein’s false entry.
This led the department to open an Internal Affairs investigation into Weinstein as well.
The Denton Police Department also conducted a concurrent criminal investigation.
The internal investigation concluded in July 2025.
Weinstein, Hulslander and Foy were all criminally indicted in October 2025 on various misconduct charges.
Weinstein’s trial evidence
Weinstein was accused of intentionally making a false statement in a probable cause affidavit that alleged an arrestee walked in the opposite direction of where another officer directed the arrestee to go.
Officers Weinstein, Hulslander and Tyler Summers first made contact with the then 21-year-old man at his residence, the Providence Place Apartments in the 2400 block of Stockbridge Road.
The man’s mother called to report a disturbance, namely, the man had been involved in a fight with his brother and the mother wanted him removed from the residence.
Weinstein is seen on body camera footage speaking with the mother, and then informing the man he is criminally trespassed from the residence for the next roughly eight hours.
At this point, he was not under arrest. If he stays on the property, Weinstein told the man, he is subject to arrest for criminal trespassing.
Officers then left the scene.
About 30 minutes later, Denton Police Department dispatch received a call about a disturbance in the complex parking lot involving a man of the same description.
The 911 callers alleged a man they did not know was yelling and kicking vehicles, preventing them from driving away.
Body camera footage showed Weinstein called the 911 callers and, as part of an investigation into whether the man was disturbing the peace, confirmed with the women that they felt threatened and offended by the man’s behavior.
Officer Paul Ramos arrived on the scene moments before Weinstein and spoke with the man. It was the same man from the earlier call, and he was yelling and appeared “escalated,” Ramos testified.
Ramos directed the man to sit down and gestured to a ledge or curb to Ramos’ right.
Weinstein arrived on the scene and approached the man and Ramos. Having established probable cause that the man was committing disorderly conduct, according to testimony, Weinstein grabbed the man’s wrist to arrest him.
There was a scuffle that lasted under a minute before the man complied with commands from Weinstein and the other officers, and they placed him in handcuffs.
Denton County Prosecutor Dustin Gossage and Denton Detectives Louis Pizana and Jasmine Badiru told the jury they take no issue with Weinstein arresting the man and believe it was a lawful arrest.
They also told the jury they take no issue with Weinstein charging the man with disorderly conduct, obstructing a highway or passageway, and resisting arrest.
What the prosecutor and detectives do take issue with, they told the jury, is Weinstein falsifying statements about the man’s actions to justify filing a charge for evading arrest or detention.
The affidavit, which Weinstein wrote the day of the arrest, states that when Ramos gave the man verbal commands to walk to a particular spot, “[he] was backing away in a different direction.”
The affidavit also states that the man walked through a puddle, which to walk through, meant “[he] had to walk in the opposite direction from where he was being directed to go.”
Ramos testified that the man was walking in the direction he had commanded the man to go.
The jury watched body camera footage of the incident and agreed that Weinstein’s sworn statements did not accurately represent the man’s actions on the footage.
To convict Weinstein of tampering with a government record, the jury had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Weinstein knowingly and intentionally falsified those statements to harm or defraud the man.
Weinstein’s defense attorneys, Earl Dobson and Gina Morgan, argued there was no evidence that Weinstein did so intentionally.
The defense attorneys also argued Weinstein’s statements, like that he did not want to have to take the man to jail, are evidence he had no ill will towards the man.
Witnesses testified that Weinstein could have reviewed body camera footage of the incident, or clarified verbally with Ramos whether the man was complying with Ramos’ commands.
Pizana testified that a log entry is created when an officer reviews body camera footage, and that there was no evidence Weinstein reviewed the footage.
Ramos testified that Weinstein never attempted to clarify verbally with him.
Prosecutors successfully argued that Weinstein acted with intent because he was tired of dealing with the man, and stacked the charges so that the bail would be higher and the man would not be released from jail as quickly.
Having found Weinstein guilty, the jury will begin to hear additional evidence Thursday that it can consider for sentencing.
Beyond the trial
Leading up to Weinstein’s trial for the tampering charge, the DA’s office sought and obtained on Aug. 6 a grand jury indictment against him for official oppression. This indictment was also in reference to the Sept. 6, 2023, arrest.
The official oppression indictment alleged Weinstein intentionally subjected the arrestee to mistreatment by making an arrest for evading despite Weinstein knowing the incident did not meet all the legal elements required to justify an evading charge.
The Class A misdemeanor official oppression charge was dropped the next day when Weinstein’s defense successfully argued the DA’s Office could not lawfully prosecute him because the 2-year statute of limitations ran its course 11 months ago.
Neither Weinstein, Hulslander nor Foy have been acting as police officers since their 2025 indictments.
Weinstein was no longer employed by Collin County upon his October 2025 indictment.
Then-Denton Police Chief Jessica Robledo entered an agreement with Hulslander on Aug. 1, 2025, where he accepted a non-appealable unpaid suspension.
Hulsander was indicted on one charge of tampering with a government record and one charge of official oppression.
Robledo also placed Foy on indefinite administrative leave on Aug. 1, 2025.
Foy appealed the suspension and that appeal has been postponed pending the outcome of the criminal charges against him. This means he is technically still a current city employee.
Hulslander and Foy’s criminal cases are ongoing, and there are no plea hearings or jury trials set for either case as of Wednesday.
All of their peace officer licenses with the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement are still active as of Wednesday since the criminal proceedings against them are ongoing.
The Internal Affairs investigation into the three officers also resulted in then-Chief Robledo issuing corrective reprimands to the officers’ supervisors. Two supervisors received written reprimands.
These reprimands were not considered formal disciplinary action under local government code, according to a document the city of Denton filed with the court.
