BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – A longtime forensic criminologist ended testimony on Friday as the trial of three ex-SAPD officers charged in Melissa Perez’s 2023 death completed its 20th day.
Thursday’s court proceedings ended with Dr. Ron Martinelli on the stand, the sixth witness called on by the joint defense team.
After Martinelli was excused from the stand on Friday, the defense filed a motion for Judge Ron Rangel to enter a not guilty verdict for the ex-officers. However, Rangel denied the motion.
Following Martinelli’s excusal, the prosecution attempted to call a rebuttal witness in front of jurors, but Rangel denied the state’s request, as well, due to a court violation.
Ex-SAPD officers Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Nathan 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 Friday’s court proceedings.
10:45 a.m. - Jurors entered the courtroom.
10:46 a.m. - Jason Goss, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, resumed his cross-examining of forensic criminologist Dr. Ron Martinelli.
The court was also shown multiple 3D recreations that included Melissa Perez and the approximate distance between her and the three ex-SAPD officers who shot at her.
Below are two of those 3D recreations when SAPD fired its first shot at Perez, who was inside her apartment.
10:48 a.m. - Martinelli provided additional clarity on the approximate distances shown in the 3D recreations created by 3D forensic expert Angelos Leiloglou.
“Just so that everybody understands: the measurements that are derived by Mr. (Angelos) Leiloglou are all in accordance of where the position of the body camera is, OK?” Martinelli said. “So, body camera to Ms. Perez’s chest, for everybody.”
10:51 a.m. - Goss began playing SAPD officer Travis Thompson’s body-worn camera video shortly after Perez was shot and killed on June 23, 2023.
In the video, SAPD officer Maria Salinas was heard yelling the word “crossfire.”
10:54 a.m. - Martinelli explained why officers are trained to yell “crossfire” in specific situations similar to the aftermath of the Perez shooting.
“That is an indication to the officers in the front that (other) officers are breaching through the back. And so, they’re in direct opposition of each other,” Martinelli said. “The officers (in the front) have not searched the apartment, so they don’t know if there’s any other person in the apartment that could be armed. Without a warning, and the sudden presence of officers — regardless of uniform or not — the first instinct of the officers on the opposing side, which would be (Alfred) Flores and (Nathaniel) Villalobos, would be, ‘There’s another potential threat.’ We cannot have those officers engaging each other."
“So, they are trained to give out a warning, ‘Crossfire,’ meaning officers are breaching from the rear. Don’t shoot,” Martinelli concluded.
11:04 a.m. - Goss argued that the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office “could have done” a similar 3D presentation as Leiloglou did leading up to the trial.
Martinelli agreed.
“They could have contacted DPS (Texas Department of Public Safety) and the Texas Rangers and used their forensic equipment, and they could have also hired a private company, like mine, that does this for a living,” Martinelli said, in part. “They could have done it at any time during the process after these officers were charged, just to double check the accuracy or inaccuracy of their work.”
11:09 a.m. - Goss asked Martinelli about the argument that Perez “would have been justified” if she killed an SAPD officer with her hammer.
“This is a very difficult job, ladies and gentlemen,” Martinelli, whose son is a police officer, said. “And law enforcement officers get stuck with all of the problems that are created by politicians and legislatures. ... We are the people that are the first responders to all of these people that have these problems that law enforcement didn’t create. Yet, in literally the blink of an eye, as in this case, we are expected to resolve these issues and these people as peacefully as possible (and) not use force.”
11:12 a.m. - Goss revealed that, in 2022, Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris attempted to hire Martinelli as the chief investigator of officer-involved shootings for the county’s Civil Rights Division.
Martinelli told the court what he would have recommended to the DA’s office for the 2023 Perez shooting — if he were retained.
“We would have looked at this case, exactly like we looked at the case on behalf of CLEAT (Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas), and we would have analyzed the case the same way and would have told him — unequivocally — not to charge these officers,” Martinelli said.
11:13 a.m. - Goss passed the witness to Mario Del Prado, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro.
11:21 a.m. - Del Prado passed the witness to Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan.
11:55 a.m. - Judge Ron Rangel, the presiding judge in this case, instituted a short break.
Jurors exited the courtroom.
12:10 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
12:49 p.m. - Lunan passed the witness. The defense did not ask Martinelli any additional questions.
Rangel excused Martinelli from the stand.
The state and defense approached Rangel’s bench for a short meeting.
12:50 p.m. - The joint defense team officially rested its case.
12:51 p.m. - Rangel instituted a lunch break for jurors. The state and defense remained in the courtroom.
12:54 p.m. - A hearing began without the presence of jurors.
The joint defense team asked the court for a directed verdict. (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.)
12:55 p.m. - “I would urge the court to make the finding because I think the evidence is, in fact, overwhelming,” Del Prado told the court, in part. “No rational juror could, in fact, return a verdict of guilty based on these facts and based on the law.”
1:01 p.m. - Lunan said the state had not yet officially rested its case, despite it doing so on Oct. 31.
The prosecution planned to call on a rebuttal witness to testify on Friday afternoon.
“It’s premature to even have this hearing, considering the evidence is not closed,” Lunan told Rangel.
“Your Honor, their case, in chief, is closed,” Del Prado said to the court. “All we have left is rebuttal. Your case, in chief, is closed. It’s done.”
Rangel denied the defense’s motion for a directed verdict and allowed for the prosecution to bring its witness in for a hearing after the lunch break.
The hearing ended. The state and joint defense team left the courtroom for lunch.
2:03 p.m. - The prosecution and defense returned to the courtroom.
A hearing began without the presence of jurors.
Due to the state’s desire to call a rebuttal witness to the stand, the joint defense team requested that the witness answer some questions before going in front of the jury.
2:04 p.m. - Rangel swore in the state’s witness, former CIA and FBI agent Chuck Joyner, to the stand.
Nico LaHood, on behalf of the defense team, began asking Joyner questions.
Joyner told LaHood that he will express opinions on “use-of-force” as well as “police practices.”
“The main nexus of this trial is whether or not the use of force was reasonable,” Joyner said.
2:05 p.m. - Joyner said that he believed the use-of-force by all three ex-SAPD officers “was unreasonable.”
“I relied on the evidence that was provided to me by the district attorney’s office, which included the body-worn camera videos of several officers, ... the reports prepared, the affidavits for arrest, the medical reports (and) witness statements.”
2:06 p.m. - Joyner said he watched three body-worn camera videos of three officers, including Robert Ramos and Jesus Rojas.
2:08 p.m. - LaHood asked Joyner about what was unreasonable about Flores’ actions.
“The short answer is: he (Flores) used deadly force when it wasn’t warranted, when it was unreasonable,” Joyner said.
Joyner also believed Alejandro and Villalobos’ actions were unreasonable for the same reason.
The witness acknowledged his previous disagreement with the DA’s office regarding whether or not the officers “were lawfully present and had the right to be entering her home.”
2:10 p.m. - LaHood passed the witness to Sifuentes.
2:13 p.m. - Sifuentes, who cited a Supreme Court case regarding the “totality of the circumstances” of a subject’s behavior, asked Joyner about why he didn’t view some of Perez’s behaviors via SAPD body-worn camera videos.
“The ‘totality of circumstances’ does not mean that you look at every possible (piece of) information. What it means is you look at relevant factors,” Joyner said.
2:14 p.m. - Joyner cited relevant factors from the Supreme Court case such as “the number of officer(s), the number of suspect(s) (and) the size of the officer(s) vs. the size of the suspect(s).”
2:22 p.m. - LaHood interrupted Sifuentes’ line of questioning to ask Joyner about his service as a police officer.
Joyner said he is currently a police officer with the Spring Valley Police Department in Spring Valley Village, Texas, which is a suburb of Houston.
2:24 p.m. - LaHood passed the witness to Christian Neumann, a co-defense attorney for Flores.
Neumann asked Joyner if he had a copy of an updated resumé with him. Joyner said no.
“The copy I have doesn’t mention peace officer experience,” Neumann said.
“That’s probably a more dated copy then,” Joyner said.
Joyner told Neumann he had “several CVs (resumés) and that’s (the Spring Valley Police Department experience) not on all of them.”
2:27 p.m. - Neumann passed the witness to Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris.
2:28 p.m. - As Harris began questioning Joyner, Neumann interrupted the state.
“We were not made aware that Mr. Joyner had any experience as a patrol officer or a peace officer in the state. It wasn’t disclosed in the CV,” Neumann said. “Given that we’re litigating a case involving peace officers in Texas, and how they acted in this particular case, that would have been invaluable information to have for us to investigate and interrogate his qualifications as an expert in this particular area.”
2:29 p.m. - Given the outdated resumé, Neumann said “this feels a little like (an) ambush.”
“We had no notice that he (Joyner) had any experience in state law enforcement, which as (Bexar County co-prosecutors) Mr. (David) Lunan and Mr. (Daryl) Harris have pointed out, is the focus of this case,” Neumann told the court, in part. “It’s state law enforcement, in their standards.”
2:33 p.m. - Rangel asked the state if it was going to be able to provide the updated information to the joint defense team.
“It’s information that we didn’t have, Your Honor,” Harris told Rangel, in part.
“He’s testifying about law enforcement matters. He obviously worked as a law enforcement officer, but he hasn’t provided that information to y’all?” Rangel asked the state.
“I did not make a subsequent inquiry from him (Joyner) of that,” Harris responded, in part. “I don’t believe it’s any intent to deceive anyone. Simply, an outdated CV came forward with the product.”
2:35 p.m. - Sifuentes, who cited Joyner’s revelation of him watching Rojas and Ramos’ body-worn camera videos, said the prosecution’s failure to disclose that information to the defense is a violation of due process.
“To permit this witness to testify now would be a manifest injustice,” Sifuentes told the court. “And we ask that he be stricken.”
2:37 p.m. - Lunan responded to Sifuentes’ claim.
“This (sic) kind of demands the defense repeatedly makes,” Lunan told the court. “’The state knew something and didn’t turn it over.’ (This) isn’t required under our discovery rules and statutory rules.”
2:38 p.m. - Rangel said the state may have committed a “potential” court violation.
According to Lunan, the defense was given information in a packet that Joyner is “a peace officer in Texas,” but the name of the law enforcement agency was not disclosed.
“They know that,” Lunan said of the defense. “They have the ability to send out a subpoena and investigate that and find those records themselves.”
“I disagree with you,” Rangel said, in part. “I think it is required (for the state to disclose all information pertaining to its case).”
2:47 p.m. - Rangel excused Joyner, the prosecution’s rebuttal witness, from the stand.
The state rested its case.
Watch the full interaction between the defense, state and Rangel that led to the witness’ dismissal below.
2:52 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
2:53 p.m. - Rangel announced to the jury that the state and defense have each rested their cases.
“What that means is you’ve now heard all the evidence that you’ll get in this case,” Rangel told jurors. “We still have to work on the law, which is the charge of the court. That’s up to the court to give to y’all before you hear closings arguments of counsel.”
2:54 p.m. - Rangel concluded court proceedings for the day. The trial is expected to continue on Monday 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: