Uvalde school officer Adrian Gonzales is currently facing trial on allegations of child endangerment and abandonment.
TEGNA Digital, Associated Press, KENS TV
3:18 PM EST January 7, 2026
3:36 PM EST January 7, 2026
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — Over three years have passed since the tragic incident at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where a gunman tragically took the lives of 19 students and two educators.
Since that day, various investigations have been conducted to uncover the details, leading to numerous reports on the incident’s aftermath and legal decisions regarding access to related records.
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — It’s been three and a half years since a gunman entered Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, killing 19 students and two teachers.
In the time since, there have been investigations into what happened, reports on its aftermath and court rulings on records requests relating to it all.
The trial for one of the officers indicted over law enforcement’s response to the shooting will go forward after a motion for a mistrial was denied. The trial began on Tuesday.
Uvalde school officer Adrian Gonzales will be tried on child endangerment and abandonment charges in Corpus Christi. (Uvalde school Police Chief Pete Arredondo was also indicted on those same charges. His trial date has not been set.)
Defense attorneys questioned whether prosecutors failed to disclose critical information ahead of trial. The controversy arose during testimony from Stephanie Hale, a former Robb teacher, who described her actions to protect students as the gunman approached her building.
During her testimony, Hale said she saw a gunman dressed in black near the area of the school where Gonzales was positioned. Defense attorneys said that statement was a surprise and had not been disclosed prior to trial and it directly conflicted what they were told. The prosecution responded that the statement was never formally documented and did not stand out at the time.
Defense attorneys questioned whether the case could proceed without addressing what they argued might be a violation of legal disclosure obligations.
While the judge did not declare a mistrial, the judge did indicate that the defense team could present the discrepancy in the witness’ testimony, and then motion to have the witness’ entire testimony thrown out.
The judge said he believed the actions of the prosecution were not intentional but rather were “negligent.”
Copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
