Gregory Surovics, the lead prosecutor in my case, didn’t just present evidence — he cultivated false narratives and put them before the court as fact. The record shows he was present when those narratives were created, and then actively elicited them during trial.
The clearest example is Wes Keeling.
- Surovics was present for the Memorandum of Interview (MOI) in which Keeling gave statements that were later proven false.
- At trial, Surovics elicited those same false statements as direct testimony, knowing they were contradicted by verified evidence — including metadata-authenticated emails and documents in government possession.
- This was not oversight. It was a decision to use testimony he knew was false in order to support the DOJ’s narrative.
Subornation of perjury is more than just unethical — it’s a direct violation of due process. When a prosecutor knowingly presents false testimony, it undermines the foundation of a fair trial and turns the proceeding into a staged outcome.
Gregory Surovics is one of several names in The Next Brady List — individuals whose actions destroy their credibility and should disqualify them from participating in the justice process.
The Fifth Circuit now has the opportunity to break this wall of silence by vacating the district court’s blanket dismissal, reopening my Rule 60(b) motions, and ordering the DOJ to respond — on the record.
Until then, the truth about Gregory Surovics and his use of known false testimony remains shielded from accountability.
Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know