THE STATE’S STANCE
When a case is pending, prosecutors are limited under the law and rules of ethics on what we can publicly say about a case. That is why my office stayed silent while the Kendall Batchelor intoxication manslaughter case was pending and during the proceedings. Rumors circulated, social media buzzed, and certain online publications released misleading stories. However, now the case has concluded, I am free to comment.
In a time where misinformation and false reporting runs rampant, it can be hard to find credible information. Unfortunately, a particular publication, on more than one occasion, has proven itself unworthy of our trust, and has sparked misinformed chatter throughout our community. I feel compelled to correct this misinformation, and to make our community aware of this kind of reporting targeting our community from the outside.
There are three SACurrent articles I’d like to mention, one which has nothing to do with the Batchelor case but is a good example of what kind of publication the SACurrent has proven itself to be. The titles are, “Kendall County Sheriff sued for allegedly beating the sh*t out of man during active shooter training.” (This title was later changed due to accuracy issues, but still kept the profanity), “Kendall County sheriff’s son to testify in Kendall Batchelor intoxication manslaughter trial,” and “The Kendall Batchelor Trial: Class, coverups and consequences in the Texas Hill Country.”
These articles were riddled with inaccuracies, misquotes, and omissions. Information and “sources” were not verified, at times the publication contradicted their own prior reporting, and the necessity for corrections was common. Much of what was accurate in these articles was because it was a regurgitation of Boerne Star reporting. Two of the three titles were nothing more than click bait as they were either false, misleading, or not based on any facts within the article itself.
When a publication gets away from the ethics and principles of journalism, plays fast and loose with the truth, and selectively conveys or omits facts in order to stir up outrage or increase internet traffic, that’s called rage farming, not news reporting. When the goal is clicks instead of accuracy, and stories are based on inuendo instead of evidence, then we should seriously question the reliability of that source.
A perfect example of this was the article titled, “Kendall County Sheriff sued for allegedly beating the sh*t out of man during active shooter training.” First the author must have felt profanity was necessary to grab attention as it wasn’t a quote from anything. Second, the lawsuit did not say the Sheriff was personally involved in the injury. The publication later changed the title of the article so it was no longer a complete mischaracterization, however the profanity stayed. The reporting came entirely from a legal pleading that was filed without doing any further investigation into the matter.
With regard to the reporting on Batchelor, the case has now ended and everything there was to know about that case was laid bare in the courtroom under an adversarial justice system. Anyone who watched that trial would have quickly realized that much of what has been on social media, in certain news stories, and in the rumor mill was not accurate.
“The Kendall Batchelor Trial: Class, Coverups and consequences in the Texas Hill Country.” The headline makes the reader think there is a coverup, or that the defendant’s money might help her out. However, there is nothing in the article to support it. The author refers to “documents” that “suggest the person at the center of the trial (Batchelor)…. May have received special treatment from authorities.” The article does not elaborate on what “documents” the author is referring to, and nothing was presented at trial to support that assertion. The rest of the article takes root in assumption without any facts or actual evidence to show anything even resembling a “coverup.”
Using the Batchelor Intoxication Manslaughter case, the author states that “Observers said the most recent crash and its outcome also may shed light on an entrenched culture of drunk driving in San Antonio and South Texas.” Of course, we don’t know who the “observers” are or what they observed. The author continues on about a “culture of irresponsible drinking,” and that the “biggest contributor to South Texas’ drinking and driving problem could be the state of Texas’ lenient sentencing when it comes to drunk driving,” where “about 28% of the 69,000 DWIs in Bexar County between 2009 and 2022 were pleaded down to obstruction of a highway, a misdemeanor charge.” Again, nothing related to Kendall County.
The article also incorrectly states that for a DWI “the state must prove that Batchelor was not only intoxicated but drunk at the time of the crash.” (The correct standard is not “drunk” it is simply intoxication defined as the loss of the normal use of a person’s mental and/or physical faculties; or BAC above .08) The author discussed Batchelor’s 2019 Kendall County DWI conviction and asserted “those charges color the subsequent police incident involving Batchelor on Dec. 23, 2021. That time, the events are murkier in police and court records – despite more potentially serious consequences, she ended up facing no charges.”
First, while there was insufficient evidence to charge the defendant with DWI in December 2021, it is inaccurate that she “faced no charges” as she was in fact charged with two counts of leaving the scene of an accident after hitting two parked cars. Additionally, for those that attended the punishment phase of the trial, I do not believe any reasonable person would have concluded that favoritism or corruption occurred in the Dec 2021 incident or any other prior law enforcement encounter with Batchelor. Mistakes were certainly made in some of those encounters, but there was no bad intent. What was clear, however, was the sincerity expressed by multiple officers, from multiple jurisdictions, who all painstakingly went through the details of their prior encounters with the defendant in front of the jury. They all felt regret that a life was lost because the defendant never learned her lesson, and if mistakes were made, the officers explained their mistakes to the jury and made assurances they would do better going forward.
The author closed his article with a final statement against the “corruption” in Kendall County, dramatically writing that “San Antonio will be watching.”
All due respect, but this is Kendall County, not Bexar County. Out here in Kendall County, we care about protecting our community. We want to seek justice for victims, and we work to uphold the law and everyone accountable under it. We strive to do what is right at all times, not just when someone is watching. Maybe by observing us, they can take some lessons back to the big city.
In Kendall County we take driving while intoxicated offenses seriously, we have been recognized for our efforts to combat drunk driving. Our judges, law enforcement, and prosecutors all work to keep our roads safe by holding people accountable, and we are a community where people think twice before drinking and driving.
Since the creation of the Kendall County Criminal District Attorney’s Office in 2017, only about 3% of all DWI related offenses were pleaded to something other than a DWI, compared to Bexar County’s 28% as reported (if accurate). In Kendall County we do not have a standard delineated program like Bexar County has had where DWI cases have been routinely plead down to an Obstruction of a Roadway. Further since 2017 only 83 total DWI related offenses have been dismissed for various reasons including death, deportation, unavailable witnesses, consideration for another plea, or evidentiary issues. Never once has my office made a determination related to a DWI case due to favoritism or because of a “coverup”. If the evidence and facts support the filing of DWI charges, then we file them. Our law enforcement aggressively watches our roads, and our judges are available 24/7 to sign blood warrants. Not to mention, the juries in our community hold offenders accountable with serious sentences for serious crimes.
I take offense to allegations that there is corruption, or coverups, or that if you are rich enough you can somehow buy your way out of trouble. Many of the public servants here in Kendall County have dedicated our entire careers to making sure these things don’t happen in Kendall County. We may make mistakes along the way, but we learn from them so we can do better in the future. We treat each other with respect and admire honesty. We care more for the victim than the offender, and we value truth over exploiting tragedy.
The article about the Sheriff’s son being subpoenaed as a witness in the Batchelor trial seemed to imply there was something more. That story has since been adjusted to correct some, but not all the inaccuracies, and it still lacks context. The article failed to mention the 86 other people who were also subpoenaed by the prosecution for that trial, or that a subpoena is nothing more than a summons for someone to testify who may have relevant evidence on a matter. The author never reached out to Bryson Auxier himself to confirm the claims from a “source” about a “close relationship” to the defendant or to ask why he’d been called to testify. Since the information was unchecked by actual investigative reporting, it is no surprise that it was inaccurate. The article used insinuation to leave the reader to make only assumptions.
When witnesses are willing to testify and cooperative, it helps the truth come to light in court. Protecting witnesses is so important that we have laws that protect people from retaliation or harassment for their role as a witness. After that article, our office had several witnesses contact us wondering if they were in trouble since they too had received a subpoena. Some of that concern came from rumors or social media comments with wild assertions of wrongdoings and coverups. It also made a witness for the state, who did nothing wrong, the target of false and disparaging remarks inspired by the article.
Anyone who attended the trial would have learned that Bryson was never called to testify by the prosecution or the defense, and the only thing presented at trial involving Bryson was that Bryson and the defendant had mutual friends. Bryson was with a friend at Richter Tavern, and the defendant was with another, Chase, at Cibolo Brewing Company. Chase and the defendant then went to Richter Tavern to meet Bryson and his companion. Chase then left, and Kendall went on to meet Bryson and her other friend over at Peggy’s. The defendant then left Peggy’s alone and drove to where the fatal crash occurred. Security footage, receipts, Chase’s testimony, and the defendant’s own testimony negated the need for Bryson, or the defendant’s other friend, to testify about how much the defendant had to drink. Any other assumptions or allegations involving Bryson or a coverup are absurd and false. Further, the investigation was handled by the Texas Department of Public Safety, not the Sheriff’s Office, and Boerne Police Department was first on the scene.
As for the SACurrent putting us on notice that San Antonio will be watching us: Yes, by all means, watch how we do things out in Kendall County.
Comment
Comments