BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – One day after calling its first active SAPD officer to testify, the joint defense team called Kendall County Sheriff’s Office Lt. Thomas Matjeka, its fourth witness, to the stand on Wednesday.
Matjeka, 70, has 47 years of work experience in law enforcement.
Travis Thompson, one of the 15 SAPD responding officers to Melissa Perez’s apartment in 2023, was called to the witness stand on Tuesday afternoon.
Thompson rode along with Nathaniel Villalobos, one of the ex-SAPD officers on trial in Perez’s death, to Perez’s Southwest Side apartment in June 2023.
Thompson’s testimony came after the defense called two former detectives as its first witnesses last Friday and on Monday.
Ex-SAPD officers Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Villalobos are on trial for the shooting death of Perez, 46.
The department has since terminated Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos from the force.
Below is the timeline from Wednesday’s court proceedings.
1:38 p.m. - A hearing was called without the presence of jurors.
Mario Del Prado, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, began addressing the court.
1:39 p.m. - Del Prado announced that he, on behalf of the defendants, filed a motion to allow their next witness to “rely on hearsay” in his testimony “as long as it is reasonable.”
1:46 p.m. - Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan responded to Del Prado’s motion.
1:47 p.m. - If the motion were to be granted, Lunan said it would be “an improper comment on the weight of the evidence.”
1:54 p.m. - Rangel granted the defense’s motion as long as they don’t “make any specific reference to” Graham v. Connor, a 1989 Supreme Court case, by name.
Lunan requested that the witness testify without the jury’s presence so that the “court can make a ruling on whether he’s qualified.”
Rangel granted the prosecution’s request.
1:55 p.m. - The state’s next witness, Kendall County Sheriff’s Office Lt. Thomas Matjeka, took the stand.
1:56 p.m. - Jurors entered the courtroom. Rangel swore Matjeka in.
1:58 p.m. - Due to the prosecution’s request, jurors exited the courtroom to hear Matjeka testify.
1:59 p.m. - Lunan began questioning Matjeka.
2:03 p.m. - Matjeka said he reviewed all of the body-worn camera video, witness statements, reports, audit trail logs and any other related report provided by the state in preparation for testimony.
2:13 p.m. - Ben Sifuentes, a co-defense attorney for Alejandro, argued that Lunan’s questioning was veering into “cross-examination.”
Lunan then said he was “comfortable” with Matjeka taking the stand before the presence of jurors.
2:15 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
2:16 p.m. - Thom Nisbet, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores, began questioning Matjeka.
2:26 p.m. - Matjeka said he created a PowerPoint presentation with still images from different SAPD body-worn camera video as well as a separate analysis to help jurors better understand his testimony.
2:33 p.m. - Matjeka explained to jurors one of the “limitations” of body-worn cameras.
“The other limitation, of course, is distance, which is something that (SAPD) detective (Ronald) Soto testified to,” Matjeka said. “He said, when he looked at the body-worn camera, it didn’t appear that Melissa Perez was that close.”
“But anybody who understands body-worn cameras, and who teaches use of force because this is one of the things we want people to be aware of and officers to be aware of, is the limitations on body-worn camera — with the software, the algorithms, the curved lenses, the quality of the lens that are being used — will create distortion,” Matjeka continued.
2:37 p.m. - In the below photo Matjeka showed to the court, the lieutenant believed Perez may have been ramping up for another attack with the hammer.
“Here, again, we’ve had two swings, two attacks on (SAPD) officer (Jonathan) Salinas already, but, in this particular case, it doesn’t appear that Melissa Perez is willing to stop the attacks,” Matjeka said. “She’s actually backing up. She’s pulling back with her arm again, and maybe preparing for a third strike, but the only reason to pull back like this is to threaten the officer.”
2:42 p.m. - Another slide in Matjeka’s presentation was shown to the court. Perez was seen holding a candle on the slide.
2:43 p.m. - “If you look very closely at this, you can see in the corner where Melissa Perez is,” Matjeka told jurors. “You can see that her entire arm, up to her shoulder, is outside that window. ... We’re looking at an arm length of about two feet. Now, add that hammer into that particular arm reach, and her arm reach goes at least, if not farther, to the trim of the door, indicating that window and that wall provide absolutely no protection for an officer who’s there.”
2:56 p.m. - A slide with ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos’ body-worn camera at the 1:51 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023, was shown to the court. The ex-officer brandished his gun in the photo.
“Being a Marine (Villalobos), when you’re faced with a deadly threat, this is the same reaction that a Marine would put out as any other person being attacked with a deadly threat,” Matjeka said, in part. “Doesn’t matter what your position is. ... His response to that fear, to that deadly attack, was to draw his weapon. It’s a reasonable response under these circumstances.”
3:10 p.m. - Matjeka explained to jurors a kind of “tunnel vision” officers can have when they’re responding to a scene similar to Perez’s apartment.
For his explanation, Matjeka shared a picture from SAPD officer Travis Thompson’s body-worn camera with the picture manipulated to simulate the potential effect of “tunnel vision” of an officer.
“In a tunnel vision situation, you’re (officers) not aware of anything that’s going on around you,” Matjeka said. “We kind of refer to that as ‘inattention to blindness.’”
“I know that in this particular case, (ex-SAPD) Sgt. (Alfred) Flores is here (standing in front of him), but I ain’t looking at him,” Matjeka continued. “Actually, in the time that this is happening, I can’t see him because my attention and my focus is narrowed down to where that particular threat is.”
3:22 p.m. - Another slide with Villalobos’ body-worn camera showed Flores with his weapon drawn toward Perez.
“It’s a startled response to what’s occurring in front of him for that deadly force,” Matjeka said. “And you’ll see (Flores realized) that, ‘Ah. Now, I’ve got to shoot.’ This is right as (he fires) his first shot.”
3:33 p.m. - A slide from Villalobos’ body-worn camera video was shown to the court. The photo, which was from the 2:02 a.m. mark in his video, shows Villalobos with a Taser in his left and a gun in his right hand.
“That threat is capable of either coming through that door on his right or coming through that window on his left, but I know where she’s at and that threat is ongoing,” Matjeka told the court. “So, I need to stop that threat. ... His intent was to stop that particular threat, as it came through.”
3:39 p.m. - Rangel instituted a short break. Jurors exited the courtroom.
3:56 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
3:58 p.m. - Matjeka offered a sharp criticism for SAPD detective Ronald Soto’s investigation into the deadly shooting of Perez.
“This investigation by detective Soto was flawed at best ... but it was also incomplete,” Matjeka said, in part. “The majority of his 60-someodd page report was a cut-and-paste of everything that had been collected by somebody else, but there was no analysis.”
“He (Soto) never went back and corrected those misleading, misstatements of what happened in this investigation that led to justification,” Matjeka continued. “But he never went back and sought out any clarification of what had happened or what these individuals said or what the body-worn camera video looked like.”
4:01 p.m. - Matjeka told the court with “legal certainty” that Alejandro, Villalobos and Flores all acted “reasonably” in the Perez shooting.
4:03 p.m. - Nisbet passed the witness to Nico LaHood, a co-defense attorney for Villalobos, who began cross-examining Matjeka.
4:39 p.m. - Matjeka believed Soto did not make the decision to file arrest warrants and charge the ex-officers.
“Clearly, he did not,” Matjeka said. “First off: there is no decision by a detective to charge another officer with a crime that he has the authority to make. That decision is always going to be run up the chain.”
4:40 p.m. - Matjeka also alluded to a meeting held with members of the SAPD administration at approximately 8:30 a.m., some six-and-a-half hours after Perez was shot and killed.
Among those allegedly in attendance was SAPD Chief William McManus.
“They (the SAPD administration) made the decision that it was a ‘bad’ shooting. Yes, sir,” Matjeka said.
4:42 p.m. - LaHood also referred to another meeting between SAPD Capt. Russ Van Geffen and Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris, which also happened on June 23, 2023.
“The (Van Geffen) report talks about reviewing body-worn camera and discussing the case and a decision was made to charge the officers,” Matjeka said.
“Is (SAPD) detective (Ronald) Soto in that meeting?” LaHood asked Matjeka.
“No,” Matjeka said.
“But detective Soto sat right where you’re (Matjeka) at and told these fine people (the jury) that he made the decision and that nobody influenced him. Did you hear him say that?” LaHood asked.
“I heard him (Soto) say that,” Matjeka said.
“Do you have an opinion about that?” LaHood asked.
“That is absolutely not true,” Matjeka said.
4:43 p.m. - Matjeka agreed with LaHood’s assertion that there was no “legal restriction” that would have prevented the prosecution from calling McManus, Van Geffen or other members of SAPD administration to the witness stand.
LaHood also asked Matjeka about why the state did not call SAPD officer Robert Ramos to the stand.
The Kendall County Sheriff’s Office lieutenant agreed with LaHood that Ramos escalated the situation between law enforcement and Perez upon his arrival to the scene.
“They (LaHood pointed at the defendants) didn’t know that (regarding Ramos’ tactics), did they?” LaHood asked.
“They did not,” Matjeka said.
“But they had to deal with it?” LaHood asked.
“Yes,” Matjeka said.
5:16 p.m. - Matjeka said that he has spent 300-400 hours investigating this case over the last two years.
5:17 p.m. - LaHood passed the witness. Rangel instituted a short break.
5:52 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
5:53 p.m. - Sifuentes began cross-examining Matjeka.
6:28 p.m. - After he finished teaching a course on use-of-force, Matjeka told the court about a conversation he had with SAPD detective Deanna Platt.
Platt, who was one of the detectives to take statements on June 23, 2023, took the stand earlier in this trial.
Matjeka said six SAPD officers, including Platt, attended his course.
“We were actually talking about taking statements from officers in an officer-involved shooting in that particular segment of the class,” Matjeka recalled to the court. “On (during) the break, I spoke to Deanna (Platt). She came up, and asked me if I was involved in the (Melissa Perez) case. I told her that I was going to be involved for the defense, but we couldn’t talk about any facts or circumstances.”
Platt then told Matjeka that she was involved with the Perez case because she took Flores’ statement.
“Because we were talking about taking statements in the class, and I had just finished talking about asking questions and delving into the ‘why,’ she made the comment that, when she took the officer’s statement, she specifically didn’t watch any of the (body-worn camera) video because she didn’t want to be influenced by what she saw on the video,” Matjeka said.
6:29 p.m. - Platt, according to Matjeka, didn’t want to inject any bias into how she took Flores’ statement.
“My response to her was, ‘Wait a minute. If you don’t watch the video, if you don’t know about the facts of what happened, then how do you know what questions to ask to get to the direction to determine whether or not the justification existed? That practice doesn’t make any sense,’” Matjeka said he told Platt.
In theory and practice, Matjeka believed that more in-depth questions can contribute to a more complete investigation led by any case’s lead detective.
6:34 p.m. - Sifuentes passed the witness. Lunan began cross-examining Matjeka.
6:50 p.m. - While acknowledging Matjeka’s opinions based on his analysis of the Perez case, Lunan said Soto, the lead detective, can also “have opinions.”
“I try to be politically correct here without actually saying it,” Matjeka told the court. “He can have opinions, but his opinions have to be based on the law, and they were clearly not. Mine, sir, are.”
“(SAPD) Chief (William) McManus can have an opinion?” Lunan asked.
“Chief McManus can have an opinion,” Matjeka said. “In this case, it was clearly wrong because there was no justification for it.”
6:51 p.m. - Lunan passed the witness. The joint defense team did not have any additional questions for Matjeka.
Rangel excused Matjeka from the stand.
6:52 p.m. - The prosecution asked the court for a “20 to 30″ minute break to review materials it just received from the defense.
6:55 p.m. - Rangel dismissed the jurors for the evening. The prosecution and the defense were given a short break.
7:23 p.m. - A hearing without the presence of jurors began.
The defense called 3D forensic analyst Angelos Leiloglou, its fifth witness, to the stand.
7:24 p.m. - Harris began asking Leiloglou questions.
7:30 p.m. - Leiloglou said he has reviewed body-worn cameras, 360-degree images taken by SAPD and the weapons used by the ex-officers for the Perez case.
7:34 p.m. - Leiloglou told the court that he was able to use a “skeleton” to try to “match or track” an officer’s bodily position to recreate different moments from the scene at Perez’s apartment.
7:37 p.m. - Leiloglou briefly left the stand to retrieve a document for the state.
7:39 p.m. - Leiloglou returned to the stand. He told the court that analyzing forensics may not be exact measurements, but they are considered estimates.
7:43 p.m. - Harris asked Leiloglou how forensic analysis can help jurors reach a verdict in a criminal trial.
“Being able to show, from the officers’ point-of-view of what they potentially could see, would help the jury in their decision making,” Leiloglou told Harris.
Harris said he had no further questions.
7:44 p.m. - Rangel concluded proceedings for the day. The trial is expected to resume on Thursday morning.
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: