BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – Only one witness took the stand during the nearly four-and-a-half full hours of testimony on Tuesday afternoon and evening.
San Antonio police officer Jesus Rojas, who first took the stand on Monday, was cross-examined by Bexar County prosecutor David Lunan as well as defense attorneys Nico LaHood and Ben Sifuentes on Tuesday.
Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Nathaniel Villalobos were each charged in connection with Melissa Perez’s June 2023 death during a mental health call at the apartment.
The department has since terminated all three officers from the force.
Rojas began Wednesday back on the stand.
Below is a timeline of events from Wednesday’s court proceedings.
1:07 p.m. - The prosecution and defense attorneys were present for a hearing held without the presence of jurors.
Jason Goss, a defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, was the first who spoke.
Goss asked the court for the prosecution to make a consistent argument regarding police warrants in front of jurors.
“The law does not require officers to get a warrant in these circumstances,” Goss said to Judge Ron Rangel, who is presiding over this case. “The fact that they (the prosecution) keep insisting through their witnesses that that is the case — and with that juror note that we got yesterday premature — but it’s clear that it’s actually having an effect on the jurors’ consideration."
Goss said he would like to have a hearing in court to determine “what the law is.”
1:16 p.m. - Bexar County Felony Criminal Trial Division Chief David Lunan, who is also prosecuting this case, defended the state against Goss’ claim.
“The fact that they (the defense) don’t like that the law, under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, says that police have no authority to arrest someone inside their homes without either consent, a warrant or an exigency. That’s what the code says, Your Honor. ... We’re not making this up.”
1:20 p.m. - Nico LaHood, the former Bexar County District Attorney who is also representing Villalobos, then asked Rangel if it was appropriate for Perez “use harm” against the officers.
“This underlining theme that they’re (the prosecution) trying to thread through this trial is it’s an ‘illegal entry,’ and they (the officers) ‘needed a warrant,’” LaHood said. “Therefore, she (Perez) can use a hammer to defend her property. That’s insane. And, David (Lunan), you know it’s insane.”
“I do not know (that) that’s insane,” Lunan responded.
“Yes, you do, sir,” LaHood said. “And so, that’s what the problem here is, judge.”
1:36 p.m. - Rangel denied Goss’ original argument about the law. The judge also granted the defense’s objection to prosecutors describing the Perez incident as an “unlawful arrest.”
1:48 p.m. - Jurors entered the courtroom. SAPD officer Jesus Rojas took the stand for the third time in three days. Cross-examination by defense attorney Ben Sifuentes continued.
2:15 p.m. - A portion of Rojas’ body-worn camera was played before the court. The footage began at the 12:45 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023.
Rojas approached a few San Antonio firefighters who were already speaking to Perez.
In the portion of the video, Perez admitted to cutting the fire alarm wires.
Sifuentes then stopped the video and asked Rojas a question.
“You would agree with me that, during these two minutes, that you had the opportunity to arrest and handcuff Melissa Perez, correct?” Sifuentes asked.
“Yes, sir,” Rojas said.
2:25 p.m. - Another snippet of Rojas’ body-worn camera played before the court.
It showed fellow SAPD officer Jonathan Salinas, who hopped over Perez’s patio fence. Perez, who was inside her apartment, then approached the patio armed with a hammer.
“Watch out. Watch out. Watch out,” Rojas told Salinas at the 1:40 a.m. mark in the video.
“You’re going to get shot,” Salinas told Perez after he backed away from the window.
Salinas was then seen pointing a weapon in Perez’s direction.
2:45 p.m. - After the series of body-worn camera footage was played before the court, Sifuentes asked Rojas if all of those moments could have been prevented if the officer apprehended Perez.
“Everybody that gets there (to the scene) has a way of doing their own thing,” Rojas said. “I can’t control what anybody else does. So, somebody else that got there — that was in charge — could have done something different.”
3:11 p.m. - Sifuentes passed the witness. Rangel instituted a short break in the courtroom.
3:33 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
Thom Nisbet and Christian Neumann, defense attorneys for ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores, began submitting evidence, which included body-worn camera footage of other officers at the scene.
Neumann began his cross-examination of Rojas.
4:18 p.m. - Rojas told the court that Sgt. Flores, Neumann and Nisbet’s client, was not yet aware that Salinas threatened Perez with deadly force or that officer Robert Ramos jumped into her patio.
Alejandro and Villalobos, in addition to Flores, were still en route to the scene on June 23, 2023.
4:36 p.m. - Neumann said Sgt. Flores was at the scene at approximately 1:50 a.m.
Rojas agreed with Neumann’s assertion that Flores was “calm, collected, thoughtful” and “didn’t have a firearm drawn.”
Neumann made similar assertions with Alejandro and Villalobos, to which Rojas agreed.
4:40 p.m. - Neumann introduced a graphic to the court titled “Tactical Response or Disengagement.
Prosecutor David Lunan objected to the graphic’s use in court.
“Can I ask what source is this information that’s shown to the jury?” Lunan asked.
“I asked him (Rojas) whether it was from the training that officers received from the academy, and he affirmed that it was,” Neumann responded.
“Is this from the general (SAPD) manual?” Lunan asked Rojas.
“Not sure if it’s in the general manual,” Rojas answered.
Rojas then said the information wasn’t written in a chart-like form, but it is information he recognized.
Rangel permitted Neumann’s chart and his line of questioning.
4:51 p.m. - Neumann passed the witness back to the prosecution.
Lunan began his cross-examination of Rojas.
4:57 p.m. - LaHood and Sifuentes objected and argued to the court that Lunan’s discussion of property law protection should not be permissible, citing Rangel’s previous ruling.
Lunan claimed his discussion was related to “entering property,” not protection of property.
“It’s misleading the jury,” Sifuentes told Rangel.
Rangel permitted Lunan’s questions because he believed it did not encroach on his previous ruling.
5:32 p.m. - Lunan passed the witness to LaHood.
5:47 p.m. - LaHood’s assertion, under “the law of parties,” Rojas could have been incriminated because he allowed Ramos to kick Perez’s door multiple times.
“So you let him (Ramos) break the law? So, under the law of parties, as they (the prosecution) talked about before, you’re just as guilty as officer Ramos,” LaHood said to Rojas.
“Yeah, I guess so,” Rojas said.
“You are, right?” LaHood asked.
“Yeah,” Rojas said.
“Don’t say ‘yes’ if you’re going to incriminate yourself, but you didn’t do that,” LaHood said to Rojas. “You didn’t break the law, and neither did officer Ramos, did you?”
“No, sir,” Rojas responded.
“No officer that night was breaking the law when they were trying to detain her (Perez) after committing multiple felonies. Would you agree with that point?” LaHood asked Rojas.
“Yes, sir,” Rojas said.
5:50 p.m. - Rangel interjected in the middle of LaHood’s cross-examination of Rojas. The judge instituted the end of the day’s court proceedings on Wednesday.
Proceedings are expected to continue at 10 a.m. on Thursday.
Tuesday’s court proceedings
Rojas and fellow responding officer Robert Ramos were at Melissa Perez’s Southwest Side apartment more than an hour before she was shot and killed by SAPD.
The court watched body-worn camera footage from Ramos, who was heard asking Perez if she was “a gang member” because she looked “like a gang member.”
LaHood and Sifuentes questioned Rojas as to why, among other things, Perez was not detained despite he and Ramos chasing after her.
LaHood then accused Rojas and Ramos of violating SAPD policy when they chased after Perez because, according to LaHood, their manual “does not say that cops can just chase after free people.”
“I’d have to read the policy,” Rojas told the court.
LaHood represents former SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, who is facing an aggravated assault by a public servant charge. If convicted, Villalobos could be sentenced to life in prison.
Sifuentes is a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, whose murder charge could also carry a maximum life sentence upon conviction. Alfred Flores, a former SAPD sergeant, is also facing a murder charge and, if convicted, a potential life sentence.
Background
On June 23, 2023, 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, which will make 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.
On Wednesday, ahead of jury selection, a pretrial hearing became heated as attorneys sparred over key issues ahead of the trial. 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 our KSAT Open Court video below:
More recent coverage of this trial on KSAT: