Defense claims mayor viewed evidence in Suzanne Simpson murder case

Brad Simpson’s defense is challenging three key law enforcement witnesses, alleging the Olmos Park police chief let the mayor view evidence after issuing gag order.

SAN ANTONIO — Attorneys for Brad Simpson, the husband accused in the murder of Suzanne Simpson, have filed a new motion targeting three members of law enforcement expected to testify for the state.

Simpson’s defense team is seeking personnel and internal records for the three individuals, arguing the information could be used to challenge their credibility as witnesses.

Brad Simpson remains the only publicly named suspect in his wife’s disappearance and presumed murder. Suzanne Simpson’s body has not been found.

According to the motion, the defense is requesting the files of Olmos Park Police Chief Fidel Villegas, Olmos Park Police Sgt. Melissa Campbell and Texas Ranger Jesse Perez.

The motion alleges Chief Villegas allowed Olmos Park Mayor Erin Harrison to privately review physical evidence connected to the Suzanne Simpson case. The defense claims the alleged review occurred after a gag order was issued, raising questions about who had access to evidence and when.

The filing also names Campbell, citing past civil rights and employment-related lawsuits. It further raises concerns about Ranger Perez, stating he was placed on administrative leave in connection with the shooting of Marcus McVae in a separate, high-profile case in the San Antonio area.

Simpson’s attorneys argue they are entitled to review any records that could potentially be used to question the credibility of investigators involved in the case.

The defense asked the judge to order internal affairs files, training records, personnel files and other internal documents to be turned over. A judge has now ordered prosecutors to obtain the records and provide them to the court for review.

Simpson’s trial was originally expected to begin last week but has been delayed until at least the end of March. Prosecutors requested the delay, citing the need for more time to review a large amount of evidence in the case.

Original News Source