BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – Bexar County prosecutors officially rested their case on Friday in the murder trial of three former SAPD officers.
The state announced its intentions during a hearing after jurors were sent home on Thursday evening. Co-prosecutor David Lunan confirmed the decision to jurors on Friday morning.
After the prosecution rested, the joint defense team called its first witness to the stand: former SAPD detective Mark Duke.
Ex-SAPD officers Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Nathaniel Villalobos are on trial for the 2023 shooting death of Melissa Perez, 46.
The department has since terminated Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos from the force.
Below is the timeline from Friday’s court proceedings.
9:46 a.m. - Due to a late juror, presiding Judge Ron Rangel called for a hearing without the presence of the jury.
9:47 a.m. - The prosecution, namely Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan, suggested the joint defense team’s potential expert witnesses not discuss “state of mind” in their testimony.
“We just want to be sure that there are no references to that in opening statement or any of that evidence is elicited through an expert or witness that (the) defense intends to call — unless they (the defense) approach the bench, and we have a hearing outside the presence (of jurors) just to see what’s going to happen,” Lunan told the court.
9:48 a.m. - Ben Sifuentes, a co-defense attorney of ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, responded to Lunan’s statement.
“I would agree that the experts can’t say what the particular defendants (ex-SAPD officers) were thinking at the time, but I believe that they are able to opine upon what a reasonably trained officer in a similar situation would reasonably believe,” Sifuentes told the court. “And whether reasonable belief would be consistent with certain facts. So, I don’t think we should be precluded from asking questions in that format.”
9:49 a.m. - Because this is a “state law,” Lunan disagreed with the defense’s desire to ask their potential expert witnesses about what a “reasonable police officer” would do.
“It’s already been decided by the court. The state can’t do that,” Lunan said. “So, if what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, the defense can’t do it either.”
Jason Goss, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, argued that the court hasn’t decided that issue. According to Goss, the state “didn’t have anybody willing” to answer those kinds of questions.
9:50 a.m. - “By necessity, they (the potential expert witnesses) have to view it from the standpoint of men acting as police officers, doing what they were doing at the time,” Goss said.
9:59 a.m. - Rangel granted the state’s motion on expert testimony.
The judge also decided to allow the state to call additional witnesses to rebut the defense’s witness testimony.
10 a.m. - The hearing ended. Rangel instituted a short break, which allowed for the late juror to arrive at approximately 10:25 a.m.
10:23 a.m. - Jurors entered the courtroom.
10:24 a.m. - Prosecution announced that it is resting its case in front of the jury for the first time.
A second hearing without the presence of jurors began. Jurors exited the courtroom.
After the jurors left, Sifuentes asked the court for a directed verdict of not guilty for all of the defendants’ charges. (A directed verdict is a ruling when a judge would decide if the state sufficiently proved its case against a defendant/defendants without the presence of jurors.)
10:26 a.m. - In Sifuentes’ directed verdict request, the defense attorney said, in part, “the state has failed to prove the essential elements of the offense alleged against the defendants.”
10:36 a.m. - Sifuentes noted a mistake in SAPD detective Ronald Soto’s initial investigation of Perez’s death.
Soto, the lead investigator in the shooting, initially reported that Perez was in her apartment hallway when officers opened fire.
However, according to SAPD body-worn camera video, Perez appeared to be running towards her patio door when ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores fired his first shot at her.
10:42 a.m. - As a part of the defense’s continued argument for a directed verdict, Sifuentes accused the state of changing its “strategy and testimony” after prosecutors were not allowed to argue that the officers attempted to unlawfully enter Perez’s apartment.
“The state refused to grant several witnesses immunity, witnesses whom they did not call,” Sifuentes said to the court, in part. “They did not grant immunity to (SAPD officers) Travis Thompson, Vince Gomez or Maria Salinas. They did not call those witnesses (to the stand). Noteworthy: each of those witnesses gave written statements, which could not be introduced (as evidence) because they were hearsay.”
10:45 a.m. - Sifuentes accused Soto of not being “truthful” in his arrest warrant, prosecution guide and his testimony.
“For example, detective (Ronald) Soto in his affidavit for arrest, falsely stated that he reviewed all the available digital evidence. This was not true because he admitted that 15 officers uploaded their body-worn cameras by 5 a.m. on June 23, 2023,” Sifuentes said, in part. “When detective Soto was confronted with this issue, the audit trails showed that he only reviewed (ex-SAPD officer) Eleazar (Alejandro)’s body-worn camera for a few minutes. He (Soto) changed his testimony.“
11 a.m. - Sifuentes’ directed verdict request concluded. He deferred to Mario Del Prado, his co-defense attorney representing Alejandro.
11:02 a.m. - “These men (the ex-SAPD officers) acted legally. They acted appropriately. They acted reasonably,” Del Prado said.
11:05 a.m. - Del Prado reminded the court about the federal judges’ decision to dismiss a civil lawsuit against the three ex-officers before that case went before a grand jury.
“And with all due respect, Your Honor, I suggest that this court should not allow this abomination to continue and allow this case to go to a jury,” Del Prado said.
11:11 a.m. - Lunan began responding to the defense’s argument.
11:18 a.m. - “Well, unlike a number of cases we have that are — basically — testimony, swearing matches and credibility determinations, this jury has before it the whole event: from beginning to her (Perez) death," Lunan said. “And they can see and they can hear all the officers.”
11:19 a.m. - Lunan argued that the ex-officers were unable to take Perez into custody “without killing her.”
11:20 a.m. - “That’s the conscience of this community to decide whether or not their actions, and pushing the dominoes down to that result, were reasonable,” Lunan said.
Lunan asked for the court to deny the directed verdict requests for Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos.
11:35 a.m. - Rangel denied the defense’s requests for a directed verdict for all three defendants, which means the trial will continue.
After a short break, jurors would be brought back into the courtroom.
11:39 a.m. - The break officially began.
11:50 a.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
11:51 a.m. - Thom Nisbet, a co-defense attorney for Flores, began the defense’s opening statements.
11:55 a.m. - “The burden of proof is on the government,” Nisbet told jurors, in part. “The evidence is going to prove that they have show murder, the intent to commit murder. Aggravated assault. They have to prove all that beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest burden we have.”
“But they (the state) also have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, it wasn’t self-defense,” Nisbet continued. “It wasn’t justified. It wasn’t defense of a third person.”
12:01 p.m. - Nisbet’s opening statements concluded. Goss called Mark Duke, a retired San Antonio police homicide detective, to the stand.
12:11 p.m. - Duke told the court about his beginnings as a homicide investigator.
Goss asked Duke whether Soto would have been assigned the Perez case as his first deadly police shooting case during the time of Duke’s initial beginnings.
“Well, theoretically, everyone has to have their first case, at some point,” Duke told Goss. “This could have been his first case, but you would want to make sure that there is someone, certainly on the shooting team, that has a lot of experience shadowing him (Soto).”
12:16 p.m. - Goss asked Duke if he believed the Perez homicide investigation was “thorough.”
“No. Not at all,” Duke said.
“In your opinion, was this a thorough and well-executed officer-involved shooting investigation?” Goss asked.
“No,” Duke said.
12:17 p.m. - Duke highlighted a simple and important part of investigating: collecting “all the evidence.”
“You’ve got one shot at it,” Duke said, in part. “I had a thing that I would do to try and make the point with them (new detectives). The first thing you’ve got to do is you’ve got to collect all the evidence.”
“You know those two-hole or three-hole paper hole punchers? I would take one of them and go over to their desk and dump it on their desk,” Duke continued. “Made a big mess. When they were gone, of course. And I would leave them a sticky note and say, ‘You’ve got to collect the dots before you can connect the dots.’ That’s very important, and you only get one chance to do it.”
12:18 p.m. - Upon arrival at the shooting scene, according to Goss, Soto witnessed SAPD crime scene investigators (CSIs) gathering evidence, but he did not instruct them before he left the scene.
“Is that a normal thing for a lead detective to do?” Goss asked Duke.
“Well, no,” Duke said. “First of all, if you’re the lead detective, you’re responsible for that case. You may trust the CSIs, and we have very good CSIs. You may trust them, but ultimately, if they miss something, it’s on you as the lead detective, OK? And it’s your case that’s either going to be made better or it’s going to be insufficient.”
12:19 p.m. - Duke also pointed out what investigators should have done at the crime scene.
“One of the things that should have been done, and I’ll explain why, is the door that was broken into should have been fingerprinted. It should have been swabbed for DNA,” Duke said. “The panel box, where the (fire) alarm was, should have been fingerprinted. It should have been swabbed for DNA.”
“‘Well, why? She (Perez) admitted to it.’ Well, it keeps people from later saying, ‘Well, we can’t believe what she said. She said she was Elvis (Presley)’s daughter. She said that she had been kidnapped by the cartel, that she owned the building,’” Duke continued. “So, what this does is, this gives us physical evidence that says, ‘No. She did tell the truth. Her DNA was there. Her fingerprints were there.’ These are stone, hard cold facts that we have to lean on, if we collect the dots.”
12:53 p.m. - Rangel instituted a lunch break. Jurors left the courtroom.
2:06 p.m. - Jurors returned to the courtroom.
2:21 p.m. - Goss asked Duke if he would be able to have “sufficient facts and data” to file arrest warrants in the way that Soto did.
“I wouldn’t have done it. I wouldn’t have comfortable with doing that,” Duke said.
“Why not?” Goss asked.
“Because there’s too much evidence to look at that needs to be considered,” Duke said.
2:38 p.m. - Goss passed the witness.
Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan began cross-examining Duke.
2:50 p.m. - One of the questions Lunan asked Duke about some of the non-arrested officers’ actions prior to the shooting.
2:51 p.m. - Goss’ objected to Lunan’s question framing.
“These are police officers that are still on the force, that have not been charged,” Goss told the court. “All of the stuff that those guys did have nothing to do with what these guys (the ex-officers) did, or were there for. And so, they keep bringing it back to something that’s not relevant.”
“I’m only following up on his (Duke’s) questions of him insinuating, or claiming, that these officers had a duty to act, when those same rules don’t apply when he compares it to (SAPD detective Ronald) Soto’s actions towards these officers,” Lunan said.
2:53 p.m. - Rangel sustained Goss’ objection.
Lunan then asked Duke about Perez’s actions depicted in the body-worn camera video against SAPD officer Jonathan Salinas.
“At first, I think there were multiple events,” Duke said. “I think, one: it was to injure him (Salinas). And, on another occasion, she attempted to seriously harm him or kill him, yes.”
3:31 p.m. - Rangel instituted a short break. Jurors exited the courtroom.
3:44 p.m. - During the break, and without jurors present, Goss accused the state of sending one of its investigators to “observe and listen” to a conversation in the courtroom hallway between Duke and the joint defense team.
The interaction between Duke, the defense team and the state’s investigator sparked “an argument,” according to Goss.
“Mr. (Nico) LaHood raised an objection to him (the state investigator) standing there and eavesdropping,” Goss told Rangel. “(He told) Mr. LaHood that he needed to, ‘Watch your step, counselor.’”
“He doesn’t tell me to watch my step,” LaHood, a co-defense attorney for Villalobos, said to the court. “And neither do they.”
At that point, LaHood pointed at the prosecution.
3:45 p.m. - After listening to Goss and LaHood, Rangel looked at Lunan for a response.
“Your Honor, I will admit that I asked my investigator to watch the fact that they (the defense) were talking to this witness (Duke) in the middle of my cross-examination, OK?” Lunan told Rangel, in part. “I did not ask him to listen in on their conversations, and I would agree that he should not listen in on their conversations. It is appropriate to not talk to a witness while they are being directed by the other side.”
3:47 p.m. - LaHood noted to the court that the state investigator made a “horribly weak” attempt at intimidation to him.
“When I pushed back on it, and he said, ‘It’s a free country. It’s a free hallway,’ and he knew what we were talking about,” LaHood said, in part. “It was a weak attempt because he’s not very intimidating, so it’s very weak. But it was improper in trying to eavesdrop, Judge.”
Goss and LaHood asked for the court to admonish the prosecution and the state investigator.
Sifuentes called for a mistrial.
3:48 p.m. - Rangel admonished the state and the state investigator for the courtroom hallway incident and denied Sifuentes’ motion for a mistrial.
3:50 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
3:57 p.m. - Lunan passed the witness. Sifuentes began cross-examining Duke.
4:22 p.m. - Rangel ended court proceedings for the day. The trial is expected to resume on Monday afternoon.
Background
On June 23, 2023, Melissa Perez, 46, experienced a mental health crisis inside her Southwest Side apartment, where SAPD body camera footage showed she was fatally shot by ex-SAPD officers Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Nathaniel Villalobos.
The case drew widespread attention and sparked debate over police response protocols.
Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos each face charges in connection with Perez’s death.
All three charged will be tried together, making for a packed courtroom.
Former prosecutor-turned-defense attorney Meredith Chacon said the plan to try all three together means each defense team has agreed on some kind of joint strategy.
“It indicates a sharing of resources, and they’re all working together on this defense,” Chacon said.
Each defendant has their own team of lawyers:
- Alfred Flores is represented by Thom Nisbet, Christian Neumann and David Christian.
- Eleazar Alejandro is represented by Ben Sifuentes and Mario Del Prado, a former division chief in the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office.
- Nathaniel Villalobos is represented by former Bexar County District Attorney Nico LaHood and his law partners Jay Norton, Jason Goss and Patrick Ballantyne.
As for the state, prosecutors include Felony Criminal Trial Division Chief David Lunan and Daryl Harris.
The trial is being presided over by Judge Ron Rangel of the 379th Criminal District Court.
Ahead of jury selection, a pretrial hearing became heated as attorneys sparred over key issues. Defense attorneys argued with prosecutors over which evidence and legal arguments should be allowed during the proceedings.
Among the issues discussed was a federal judge’s recent decision to dismiss a civil lawsuit against the officers — a ruling the defense wants jurors to hear about. Prosecutors opposed that motion.
Defense attorneys also objected to any discussion of the Castle Doctrine, or “protection of property” laws, during the trial. They argued it is irrelevant to the facts of the case.
Rangel has yet to rule on those motions.
If convicted, Flores and Alejandro each face up to life in prison. Villalobos, who is facing an aggravated assault by a public servant charge, also faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.
For a full look back at this case, watch the KSAT Open Court video below:
More coverage of this trial on KSAT: