For the full case overview, see the cornerstone post: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know.
William Brooks, a San Antonio-based attorney, played a quiet but pivotal role in a case that has now unraveled into one of the most disturbing examples of prosecutorial misconduct and systemic failure in recent memory. While the spotlight often shines on prosecutors and investigators, it’s sometimes the silence of co-counsel like William Brooks that speaks the loudest.
Brooks was present at critical junctures of the Universal K9 prosecution. He was paid, privy to discovery, and served as co-counsel alongside Thomas McHugh — the same McHugh now accused of hiding Brady material and submitting a false affidavit to the Texas Bar.
And what did William Brooks do? Nothing.
No disclosure. No objection. No motion to withdraw.
When the defense team fractured ethically, Brooks stayed silent — and that silence helped a wrongful conviction stand.
William Brooks had every reason — and responsibility — to speak up.
He had the same access to the discovery, the same conflict concerns, and the same duty to protect the client.
Yet he let the conflict grow in plain view. He let the lies slide. He let the court get misled.
According to federal Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, the right to conflict-free counsel is not optional. When an attorney stays silent in the face of constitutional violations, they cross the line from negligence into complicity.
While prosecutors like Gregory Surovics and former agents like Fred Olivares are now under fire, William Brooks has so far escaped public scrutiny.
That changes now.
He was there. He saw it. He said nothing. And soon, the court will hear about it.
Image File Name: william-brooks-san-antonio-attorney.jpg
Alt Text: Attorney William Brooks San Antonio – Universal K9 Fraud Case
Caption: William Brooks, San Antonio-based attorney named in Universal K9 federal misconduct case.
William Brooks – FAQ
Who is William Brooks in the Brad Croft case?
William Brooks was part of Croft’s defense team in San Antonio. He is accused of silent complicity — knowing about major conflicts of interest and failing to act on them.
What was Brooks’s conflict of interest?
Brooks was fully aware that Croft’s PI, Fred Olivares, had helped open the case against Croft while with the FBI, and that Thomas McHugh allowed him to sit inside the defense team. Brooks knew this created a structural conflict but chose not to challenge it.
What was Brooks’s role in the Midlothian subpoena?
Brooks drafted the subpoena to Midlothian PD. Before it was served, Olivares used FBI contacts to learn that Wes Keeling was Brady listed. Instead of serving it, Brooks let the subpoena be buried and never brought it before the court.
Why is the “Croft deliver the subpoena” story unbelievable?
Olivares later claimed in an affidavit that Croft said he would deliver the subpoena. Brooks echoed this in his bar response. The claim is impossible: Croft was on strict house arrest with an ankle monitor, barred from travel except court or hospital, and Midlothian PD is over 300 miles away. Croft had also paid over $120,000 for his defense team to handle subpoenas, not to serve them himself.
What did the FOIA request later confirm?
FOIA records confirmed that Keeling was Brady listed before Croft’s trial. This proved the government used a known liar while Brooks and the defense team suppressed the evidence and later misled in official filings to cover their tracks.
What filings involve Brooks today?
Brooks is implicated in Croft’s malpractice demand letters, civil suits, and upcoming bar complaints. He is documented as part of the compromised defense team that buried Brady evidence and denied Croft a fair trial.
Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know
Update – September 2025
What’s new: This update documents William Brooks’s role in drafting the Midlothian subpoena, his decision to let it be buried once it showed Wes Keeling was Brady listed, and his later bar response echoing Olivares’s false affidavit. It links to the central hub and companion posts for context.
Key facts now documented
- Brooks drafted the Midlothian subpoena targeting records at Midlothian PD. Before it was ever served, Fred Olivares used FBI contacts, discovered Wes Keeling was Brady listed, and the subpoena was buried.
- No service ever occurred. The defense never followed through, despite Brooks having drafted it.
- Later cover story: In his bar response, Brooks echoed Olivares’s affidavit claiming Croft would deliver the subpoena. This was impossible—Croft was on strict house arrest, barred from travel, and had already paid over $120,000 for his legal team to handle subpoenas.
- FOIA confirms Keeling’s Brady status existed before trial, proving the government relied on a compromised witness while Brooks and the defense team concealed the truth.
Mini timeline
- Brooks drafts subpoena → Olivares checks via FBI contacts.
- Keeling confirmed Brady listed → subpoena buried, never served.
- Trial proceeds → government uses Keeling as key witness.
- Years later: Olivares affidavit blames Croft → Brooks echoes in bar response.
- FOIA confirms pre-trial Brady listing.
Related pages
Central hub: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth
Companions: Thomas McHugh — Conflict of Interest · Fred Olivares — FBI/PI Conflict
Why this matters
This was not an oversight. It was a coordinated act: a subpoena drafted then buried, Brady evidence hidden, and a false cover story repeated in official responses. This page will continue to be updated as filings and exhibits are added.