For the full case overview, see the cornerstone post: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know.
Thomas McHugh, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney based in San Antonio, played a lead role in a federal prosecution now unraveling under the weight of Brady violations, false affidavits, and suppressed conflicts. McHugh wasn’t just present — he orchestrated the case, shaped the indictment, and silenced the defense.
Now, the record is catching up.
Despite being directly informed by the Department of Justice about a major conflict involving the defense team’s investigator — a former FBI agent who had prior involvement in the prosecution — McHugh submitted a sworn affidavit to the Texas State Bar claiming he had no such knowledge.
That affidavit is now refuted by DOJ’s own letter, exposing McHugh to potential perjury and professional misconduct.
McHugh’s failure to disclose the conflict didn’t just violate ethical rules — it destroyed the client’s right to a fair trial. When confronted during a bar investigation, instead of correcting the record, he lied to cover his own tracks. And that lie is now central to both pending Rule 60 motions and a federal civil rights complaint.
It wasn’t just what McHugh knew — it was what he chose to conceal.
Rather than stepping aside or disclosing the conflict, McHugh advised the client to proceed to a bench trial and failed to correct false testimony from the government’s key witness. This wasn’t just trial strategy — it was a setup.
The silence of Thomas McHugh helped send an innocent man to prison. That silence is now part of the public record — and it’s being challenged in every court that matters.
Thomas McHugh – FAQ
Who is Thomas McHugh in the Brad Croft case?
Thomas McHugh was one of Croft’s defense attorneys in San Antonio. He is now accused of betraying his client by hiding a major conflict of interest involving federal investigators and by allowing exculpatory evidence to be buried.
What was McHugh’s conflict of interest?
McHugh knew that Croft’s private investigator, Fred Olivares, was a “former but not former FBI agent” who had actually helped open the case against Croft years earlier. Instead of exposing this, McHugh allowed Olivares to embed himself inside the defense team while still aligned with law enforcement.
What happened with the Midlothian subpoena?
Defense attorney William Brooks drafted a subpoena to the Midlothian Police Department. Before it was ever served, Olivares used FBI contacts to preview what it would reveal and discovered that Wes Keeling was Brady listed. Under McHugh’s watch, the subpoena was buried and never served.
Why is the “Croft deliver the subpoena” story impossible?
Olivares later swore in an affidavit that Croft said he would deliver the subpoena himself. That is impossible. Croft was on strict house arrest with an ankle monitor, forbidden to travel except for court or hospital visits. Midlothian PD is over 300 miles away, and Croft had paid over $120,000 for McHugh, Brooks, and Olivares to handle subpoenas and defense work. Expecting him to serve his own subpoena was absurd and a cover story.
What did the FOIA request reveal after trial?
A FOIA request later confirmed that Wes Keeling was Brady listed before Croft’s trial. This meant the government knowingly used a compromised witness while McHugh and his team buried the evidence.
What filings involve McHugh today?
McHugh is a central figure in Croft’s Rule 60(b) filings, civil rights lawsuits, and forthcoming bar complaints. These filings argue that McHugh knowingly permitted a compromised defense team, concealed Brady material, and failed to act on government misconduct.
William Brooks – The Attorney Who Stayed Silent
Gregory Surovics – The Prosecutor Who Knew Too Much
Fred Olivares – The Gatekeeper Who Switched Sides
Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know