San Antonio officials this week asked a judge to privately review personnel records tied to the Olmos Park police chief who led the investigation into the disappearance and presumed killing of Suzanne Simpson, adding yet another twist to an already messy court fight. The request, combined with fresh accusations that the chief let the Olmos Park mayor look at physical evidence, has widened a contentious discovery battle and pushed the case’s timeline further out. Brad Simpson, Suzanne’s husband and the man charged in her presumed killing, has already seen trial dates slide as attorneys argue over what must be turned over. Both sides are still on track for a status hearing in Bexar County on April 1, 2026.
City asks judge for private review
San Antonio Assistant City Attorney James Kopp filed a motion asking the court to conduct an in‑camera inspection of San Antonio Police Department personnel files tied to Olmos Park Police Chief Fidel Villegas. In simple terms, the city wants the judge to look at the records behind closed doors and then decide what, if anything, the defense can see. The motion specifically asks the judge to release only “exculpatory information or material impeachment evidence,” as reported by MySA.
Defense raises chain-of-custody concerns
Defense attorney Steven Gilmore has subpoenaed Villegas’ records from multiple agencies, including SAPD, the Floresville ISD police, Windcrest and the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office, arguing the files could reveal bias or other material that might be used to impeach the chief’s credibility. Gilmore’s filings also allege Villegas “allowed the Olmos Park mayor peruse physical evidence in the murder case,” a claim folded into the broader discovery fight and detailed by MySA. That allegation goes straight to chain-of-custody worries, since outside eyes on evidence often become a flash point in serious felony cases.
Case background and discovery fight
These latest questions land on top of a long list of disclosure disputes that have repeatedly slowed Simpson’s prosecution and led a judge to slap broad gag orders on witnesses and investigators. A timeline compiled by KSAT shows the investigation has already included multiple searches, sealed warrants and months of evidence processing, all unfolding while lawyers argue over who is entitled to see what, and when.
Legal stakes: Brady, Giglio and in‑camera reviews
At the center of this fight is a familiar criminal-law question: whether Villegas’ personnel file contains Brady or Giglio material, meaning evidence that could help the defense or undermine a government witness. Under constitutional law, prosecutors have to disclose that kind of information. To balance privacy concerns against a defendant’s right to potentially useful impeachment material, courts sometimes handle these disputes with private, in‑chambers in‑camera reviews. That basic framework comes from cases such as Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, which set the ground rules for what prosecutors must turn over.
What to watch
The city’s motion makes it more likely the case will face further delays while the judge works through the personnel records and decides what, if anything, gets added to the official evidence log. How much the judge ultimately releases could shape the tone of any future trial, particularly if the file contains impeachment material tied to the chief’s role in the investigation. For background on the charges against Brad Simpson and earlier court deadlines, see reporting by The Associated Press and Hoodline’s prior coverage of the indictment and discovery timeline.
