Former Uvalde school police chief set to appear in court

Pete Arredondo in 2024 was charged with 10 counts of endangering students.

Former Uvalde school police chief Pete Arredondo is set to return to a Texas courtroom on Friday, as the judge overseeing his criminal trial weighs moving the case out of Uvalde and whether the whole thing might have to wait because US Customs and Border Protection has refused to cooperate.

Arredondo in 2024 was charged with 10 counts of endangering students by failing to quickly respond to the 2022 mass shooting. The criminal case has stalled due to two ongoing civil lawsuits that seek to force agents with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Patrol Tactical Unit -- involved in taking down the gunman -- to testify in the case.

Nineteen students and two of their teachers were killed when Robb Elementary School was attacked by a former student on the last day of school, May 24, 2022.

Arredondo led the response to the 2022 shooting rampage, and prosecutors allege that he ignored his training by waiting some 77 minutes before agents stormed a classroom and killed the gunman. Earlier this year, a jury acquitted former school police officer Adrian Gonzales on similar charges after a three-week trial.

Families of the victims responded to that verdict with outrage and some are looking to Arredondo’s trial as another opportunity for justice.

"We had a little hope, but it wasn't enough," Jacinto Cazares, whose 9-year-old daughter Jackie died in the shooting, said after Gonzales’ acquittal in January. "Again, we are failed. I don't even know what to say."

Arredondo has pleaded not guilty, arguing he followed his training and saying he did not consider himself as the incident commander that day, though investigators said he was just that. Arredondo's attorney Paul Looney told ABC News that he believes the case against Arredondo is weaker than the failed prosecution of Gonzales.

“They tried the one they thought that they had the best shot at, but now they're going to put everything they've got into doing this one, because they do want to win at least something,” Looney said.

Friday’s status conference comes as Judge Sid Harle weighs the future of the case. The judge has said he wants to determine how the trial against Arredondo can proceed amid the ongoing litigation with CBP and whether -- as in the case of Gonzales -- the trial ought to be moved out of Uvalde.

Both Uvalde District Attorney Christina Mitchell and Arredondo filed federal lawsuits to compel the federal agents to cooperate with investigators and potentially testify at trial.

“The three border patrol agents whose cooperation is now being sought by District Attorney Mitchell -- two of whom participated in the actual killing of the gunman and the third who was present in the hallway during most of the incident -- are essential to the pending Texas criminal prosecution,” Mitchell wrote in her lawsuit.

CBP attorneys have argued that the request for testimony is unreasonable, unnecessary and “negatively impacts CBP operations and national security” by taking up resources and potentially disclosing sensitive information.

Attorneys have argued that CBP revealed enough information through the investigative summaries prepared by the Texas Rangers and a report released by CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility.

“It is unclear from your request how testimony from the identified CBP employees is genuinely necessary to the proceedings,” an attorney for CBP said in a court filing.

Earlier this year, a new judge was assigned to the lawsuit filed by Mitchell, and this week she filed a motion to schedule a status conference in that case. Looney, who filed a separate lawsuit largely mirroring the District Attorney’s, said he anticipates the litigation will take another eight months to a year.

Friday’s hearing will be held in Uvalde, though the trial of Gonzales was held in Corpus Christi to find an impartial jury, due to the widespread impact of the shooting on the Uvalde community.

Arredondo’s lawyer said he expects Harle to grant his motion for a venue change, though he claimed there is “no sense of urgency” to resolve the venue issue while the case remains stalled by the ongoing civil litigation.

Sponsored Content by Taboola