Governor To Issue Pardon Over Controversial Case

On Saturday, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas declared his intention to pardon the self-defense conviction of Daniel Perry.

A Texas jury convicted Perry guilty of murder on Friday for shooting and killing a man with an AK-47 at a Black Lives Matter rally in 2020.

While Perry was not initially charged with the crime, he would be prosecuted by newly elected District Attorney Jose Garza in 2021. Billionaire Democratic megadonor George Soros supported the campaigns of many district attorneys, including Garza.

In response, Abbott defended Texas’s “Stand Your Ground” statute, saying, “Texas has one of the toughest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that a jury or a progressive District Attorney cannot overturn.” In contrast to the President and other states, the Governor of Texas may only grant pardons if the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it.

Abbott elaborated – The Governor MAY ask the Board of Pardons and Paroles to decide whether a person is eligible for a pardon under Texas law. He said he’s already asked for it and told the Board to move quickly. As soon as the Board’s pardon proposal reaches his desk, he intends to sign it. In addition, he has made it a top priority to pass legislation that would reign in overzealous district attorneys.

As Florida Governor Ron DeSantis deployed law enforcement authorities to remove a woke Soros-backed prosecutor from their seat in the state, Abbott decided to go after “rogue District Attorneys,” too.

In an affidavit from 2021, leading investigator David Fugitt said that Garza exhibited “criminal conduct” throughout the investigation.

Fugitt stated that he discussed with the District Attorney’s Office exculpatory evidence linked to Daniel Perry on many occasions. He said the DA did not want to provide evidence to the grand jury that might be exculpatory to Daniel Perry.

He said his initial Powerpoint presentation included 158 slides, but the judge ordered practically all of the exculpatory information to be redacted. He felt helpless and had no choice but to follow their directives.

According to Fugitt, “the conduct of the District Attorney’s Office moved from very unethical behavior to criminal action” throughout the trial.