Federal Judge Considers Unsealing Key Documents in El Paso Walmart Mass Shooting Case
EL PASO, Texas — Nearly five years after the devastating mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart that left 23 people dead and dozens injured, a federal judge is weighing whether to unseal a trove of sealed court documents in the federal case against the shooter, Patrick Crusius. The potential release of these records could provide long-sought transparency into how the government handled one of the most horrific hate crimes in U.S. history.
At the center of this effort is a motion filed by El Paso Matters, a nonprofit news organization, seeking to unseal more than 300 court records — including ex-parte filings, financial documents related to the defense team, and internal memos explaining why federal prosecutors ultimately chose not to seek the death penalty.
A Push for Public Accountability
The hearing, held May 1 at the Albert Armendariz Sr. Federal Courthouse in Downtown El Paso, brought together defense attorneys, federal prosecutors, and U.S. Senior District Judge David C. Guaderrama, who signaled that he was “presently inclined to unseal all of the sealed documents.” Guaderrama emphasized the public’s right to know, particularly in a case of such magnitude and national interest.
The 2019 mass shooting — the deadliest attack targeting Hispanics in modern U.S. history — shocked the nation and intensified debates over white supremacist violence, gun control, and the criminal justice system. Crusius, who admitted he traveled from the Dallas area to El Paso with the explicit intent to kill Mexicans, pleaded guilty in 2023 to 90 federal charges, avoiding a federal death sentence and receiving multiple life sentences instead.
In its motion, El Paso Matters argued that the sealed records hold critical insights into how the case was handled and why federal prosecutors made key decisions, particularly around the death penalty, which many in the community had anticipated. The filing stated:
“The public knows little about the details of Crusius’ attack… and does not have an understanding of why the government decided not to seek the death penalty in this case.”
Legal Hurdles and Concerns Over Attorney-Client Privilege
Attorneys for Crusius — including Joe Spencer, Mark Stevens, Rebecca Hudsmith, and Felix Valenzuela — voiced concerns about unsealing materials protected by the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), a federal law governing the representation of indigent defendants. They argued that while the public may have a right to know how much defense attorneys were paid (with taxpayer funds), the details of how that money was used, including strategy memos and internal communications, are covered by attorney-client privilege and should remain private.
“You don’t want your lawyers to write a memo and give it to the press,” Hudsmith said following the hearing. “It’s sensitive, sensitive stuff. And we shouldn’t have to give it just because we’re court-appointed.”
Hudsmith acknowledged the public’s right to financial transparency and committed to submitting a summary of how much each defense team member was paid within 60 days. Judge Guaderrama accepted the proposal, giving her until the deadline to compile and submit the information.
Federal Prosecutors Cautiously Support Unsealing
Interestingly, the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not oppose the unsealing effort. Federal prosecutor Ian Martinez Hanna told the court that the government simply wants time to review the documents for any sensitive material that should be redacted — such as private personal information, security-related content, or protected witness details.
Judge Guaderrama instructed both sides — defense and prosecution — to collaboratively review all sealed materials, flagging those that could be unsealed and isolating records that may require further discussion in future hearings. No timetable was established for when the next hearing will be held, but the judge made it clear that transparency and public access will be a priority moving forward.
A Case with National Implications
This effort to bring sunlight to sealed records in the Crusius case has implications far beyond El Paso. As the worst hate-fueled mass shooting targeting Latinos in U.S. history, the case has become a touchstone for discussions on hate crimes, racial violence, mental illness, and criminal justice reform.
One of the lingering questions is why the federal government did not pursue the death penalty, despite clear evidence of premeditation, racial hatred, and terrorism. Crusius had published a manifesto online minutes before the attack, echoing white nationalist ideologies and expressing support for the Christchurch mosque shooter in New Zealand.
Observers have speculated that Crusius’ diagnosed mental illness may have played a role in the Department of Justice’s decision — a possibility raised in the El Paso Matters motion and reinforced by defense attorneys.
“At the end of the day… the public will feel comfortable,” said Hudsmith. “They have a right to know the ultimate amounts [paid to attorneys] and that the process is a good one.”
What’s Next?
If Judge Guaderrama follows through on his inclination to unseal the records, the public could soon gain unprecedented insight into the workings of a federal hate crime case — including how decisions were made, how resources were allocated, and what arguments were presented behind closed doors.
For now, the nation — and especially the El Paso community — awaits the outcome of this transparency push. With the legal teams set to review hundreds of documents in the coming weeks, a fuller picture of justice in the Crusius case may soon come into view.