BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – A San Antonio police officer ended his nearly four-day stint on the stand on Thursday, and a second SAPD officer offered insight as to why he entered a Southwest Side woman’s apartment before it became a deadly encounter.
Jesus Rojas, who has not been charged with any crime, was the third witness called to testify on Monday in the trial of three former SAPD officers charged in the 2023 killing of Melissa Perez.
Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Nathaniel Villalobos were each charged in connection with Perez’s death during a mental health call at her apartment.
The department has since terminated all three officers from the force.
Rojas was also the lone witness who spoke to the court for a combined eight hours on Tuesday and Wednesday, per KSAT’s count.
Jonathan Salinas, the second witness and SAPD officer called to the stand, told the court — among other things — about what compelled him to go into Perez’s apartment.
Below is a timeline of events from Thursday’s court proceedings.
10:23 a.m. - A hearing was held without the presence of the jury. Jason Goss, a defense attorney for former SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, argued to the court that the state not be allowed to ask officers questions such as “should you have gotten a warrant?” or “should you have been there?”
“It would be speculation,” Goss said to Judge Ron Rangel. “And, again, as we’ve kind of seen from this witness (SAPD officer Jesus Rojas), it’s not clear to us that these officers necessarily even know really what the law is. So, then it would just serve to confuse the issues, confuse the jury.”
10:25 a.m. - Bexar County Felony Criminal Trial Division Chief David Lunan, a prosecutor in this trial, agreed with Goss.
“Your Honor, it cuts both ways,” Lunan said. “It’s just as inappropriate for them to do that as for us to make this witness (Rojas) the ultimate factfinder in the case. So, if they’re going to stop asking those questions, then I don’t, in rebuttal, need to counter those questions.”
10:27 a.m. - Rangel, the presiding judge in this trial, agreed with the defense’s objection as well as Lunan’s assertion that those types of questions were asked by both sides. The judge asked the prosecution and the defense to “specifically elicit facts from the witnesses and not any legal opinions from the witnesses.”
10:29 a.m. - Jurors entered the courtroom. Christian Neumann, a defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores, began submitting pieces of evidence. The prosecution did not object to the submitting of the new evidence.
Rojas returned to the stand for the fourth time in four days. Nico LaHood, a defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, resumed his questioning of Rojas.
10:33 a.m. - LaHood asserted that “the complete course of that night changed” when Perez committed assault against SAPD officer Jonathan Salinas.
“Yes, sir,” Rojas responded.
10:41 a.m. - During LaHood’s question about another officer’s and his own “bad tactics” at the scene, Rojas made his own admission.
“Everybody showed some kind of bad tactics,” Rojas said.
10:42 a.m. - LaHood passed the witness. The prosecution did not have any other questions for Rojas. He was excused from the stand.
10:46 a.m. - The next witness, SAPD officer Jonathan Salinas, was called to the stand and sworn in by Rangel.
Bexar County prosecutor Daryl Harris began questioning Salinas.
10:52 a.m. - Salinas told the court that he wasn’t sure when he arrived at Perez’s apartment complex.
Harris showed an SAPD incident detail report that indicated Salinas arrived at 1:01 a.m. on June 23, 2023.
“Who did you see when you first got there?” Harris asked.
“I believe it was (SAPD officer) Rojas,” Salinas responded. “He told me that there was a female in her apartment, which I believe he identified as Melissa Perez. (There was) damage to a fire (alarm) panel, which she admitted to. (The San Antonio) Fire (Department), and I believe him (Rojas), took me to the panel to show me the damage.”
10:56 a.m. - Rojas’ body-worn camera footage was played before the court. In the video, which began at 1:02 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023, Rojas’ interaction with Salinas was shown.
11:02 a.m. - More of Rojas’ body camera footage was played in court. In the video, Salinas, who was in charge of the scene at the time, said he was set to call then-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores to come to the complex.
11:05 a.m. - Salinas told the court that he had “contact” with Perez “from the past,” which he communicated in the video.
“I believe it was, like, two or three weeks ago (before June 23, 2023),” Salinas told Harris.
According to an SAPD report, the actual date was June 14, 2023.
“What was the nature of your prior engagement with her?” Harris asked Salinas.
“The call for service? What was the description for it?” Salinas responded.
“Yes. What was it for?” Harris asked.
“It was for a disturbance call of service,” Salinas said.
11:08 a.m. - Salinas recalled his previous “two calls of service” with Perez, which included a “female causing a disturbance.” The person who called 911 said she and her boyfriend “didn’t feel safe” exiting their vehicle, so they called police and gave them a description of a person.
Upon arrival to the scene, Salinas said he didn’t see anyone matching the description in the area. Salinas later got into contact with the caller who told him she and her boyfriend were able to get to safety.
Salinas said the same 911 caller called police again and claimed that Perez emerged from a wooded area.
11:11 a.m. - On June 23, 2023, Salinas said he called ex-SAPD Sgt. Flores from his patrol vehicle and told him that Perez was inside her apartment. He also told Flores of his intention to list Perez as a suspect in the criminal mischief case regarding the cut fire alarm wires.
Flores authorized Salinas’ intent to write up the criminal mischief report.
11:12 a.m. - More of Rojas’ body-camera video was played before the court, beginning at the 1:22:30 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023.
In the video, Salinas told Rojas in the complex’s parking lot that “we’re good,” meaning that the call was over.
However, after saying that to Rojas, Salinas said he doesn’t “remember” what he immediately did next. He then deactivated his body-worn camera.
11:15 a.m. - Body-worn camera video from Salinas at approximately 1:23:43 a.m. was played before the court.
11:20 a.m. - Rangel instituted a short break. Jurors left the courtroom.
11:50 a.m. - A hearing was held without the presence of jurors.
Rangel allowed a line of questioning to commence without jurors. LaHood began asking Salinas questions.
11:55 a.m. - While he wasn’t able to make contact with Perez after his first dispatch on June 14, 2023, Salinas told the court that he made contact with her after he was dispatched for a second time.
The officer said he found Perez sitting on a curb, but he claimed she refused to give him information about herself.
12:17 p.m. - The hearing without jurors ended. The jury reentered the courtroom.
Harris resumed asking Salinas questions.
12:20 p.m. - Salinas’ body-worn camera resumed playing before the court.
In the video, Salinas returned to his SAPD vehicle to call multiple fellow officers on his personal cellphone, including a detective, over an approximately five-minute period between the 1:31 a.m. and the 1:36 a.m. mark.
12:22 p.m. - Salinas said another call he made during that time was to then-SAPD Sgt. Flores.
“It was a short conversation (with Flores),” Salinas told the court. “I advised them that the misdemeanor charge for criminal mischief was now upgraded for a felony amount. ”(Told him I) spoke with (SAPD) Detective Thornton ... and advised him that I tried to apprehend her to go open the window, which Flores responded, ‘OK. Keep me posted.’"
“So, you had approval from your sergeant (Flores) to try to go in and apprehend through the open window?” Harris asked Salinas.
“I believe so, with his response,” Salinas responded.
12:23 p.m. - Salinas’ body-worn camera resumed playing before the court at the 1:36 a.m. mark in the video. At this point, according to the video, Salinas was seen leaving his SAPD patrol vehicle.
“Is she (Perez) still on the couch (in her apartment)?” Salinas said to fellow officer Jesus Rojas, who was off camera, in the video. “He (Flores) said we can go get her.”
Salinas said he returned to looking for Perez around the outside of her apartment.
12:30 p.m. - Salinas’ body-worn camera resumed playing before the court.
At the 1:37 a.m. mark in the video, Salinas walked up to one of Perez’s windows with a flashlight and asked her to open her front door.
“She is in her bedroom, laying on her bed,” Salinas told the court.
12:34 p.m. - At the 1:39 a.m. mark in the video, Salinas and fellow officer Robert Ramos walked to Perez’s front door and attempted to kick Perez’s front door.
“You wanna stretch first?” Ramos asked Salinas.
Salinas was the officer who turned around and kicked the door from behind 11 times.
Ramos then began kicking Perez’s front door.
After his first kick against the door, the body camera fell off of Ramos. The camera was reinstalled on Ramos’ chest equipment.
An additional five kicks from Ramos caused the camera to fall to the ground for a second time.
12:36 p.m. - At the 1:40 a.m. mark in the video, Salinas left Ramos and went to the apartment’s patio area and hopped over Perez’s patio fence.
Salinas then went up to a window, which had a non-glass covering, and removed it.
Perez then ran up to the open window and swung a hammer at Salinas, the video indicated.
Salinas backed away, drew a gun and aimed it at Perez.
“You’re gonna get shot,” Salinas said to Perez.
“Shoot me,” Perez responded.
12:47 p.m. - In his body-worn video, Salinas was seen putting away the gun before drawing his Taser. Harris asked Salinas why he changed to a “less lethal” weapon.
“Like I explained before, ‘I don’t know,’” Salinas told the court. “It’s uncontrollable movement.”
1 p.m. - In Salinas’ body-worn video, ex-SAPD Sgt. Flores met Salinas at the scene.
Salinas then told the court that Perez hit him in the arm with the hammer.
“It continued,” Salinas said, describing the pain of being struck by Perez’s hammer. “I looked at my arm multiple times.”
Rangel instituted a lunch break. Jurors left the courtroom.
2:28 p.m. - Neumann introduced additional evidence, which were admitted.
2:30 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom. Harris resumed his line of questioning to Salinas.
2:48 p.m. - At the 1:58 a.m. mark of Salinas’ body-worn camera video, Salinas was heard contacting a dispatcher to “have fire (San Antonio Fire Department) out here, on standby.”
Harris asked Salinas why he made the request.
“Just to have them by the scene,” Salinas said. “That’s initially what ‘standby’ means.”
“What did you anticipate was happening?” Harris asked.
“Some plan being talked about,” Salinas said.
“Did you know what the plan was?” Harris asked.
“No, I did not,” Salinas responded.
“How did you come to understand some plan was happening, if you didn’t know what it was?” Harris asked.
“Just a group discussing with Sgt. (Alfred) Flores,” Salinas said. “I’m assuming plans were being made.”
“Were you being proactive?” Harris asked.
“Just trying to be prepared, just in case something were to happen,” Salinas said.
2:59 p.m. - At the 2:02 a.m. mark in Salinas’ body-worn camera, one of the SAPD officers hopped over Perez’s patio gate.
From Salinas’ perspective, who was further back from the patio, multiple gunshots rang out.
3:23 p.m. - Harris passed Salinas, the witness, to the defense. LaHood began cross-examining Salinas.
3:47 p.m. - LaHood recalled Salinas’ testimony about his conversation with Flores about entering Perez’s apartment.
Salinas confirmed that entering her apartment was his idea.
“That’s important,” LaHood said.
4:14 p.m. - LaHood asked Salinas about a previous conversation he had with the prosecution.
“So, you understand that the state’s theory of the case is that Melissa Perez, if she had hit you with a hammer and killed you, she would have been right to do so?” LaHood asked.
“That’s what they (the prosecution) told me at pretrial, yes,” Salinas responded.
“How do you feel about that?” LaHood asked.
“Upset,” Salinas said.
“And you’re upset because they told you in pretrial that if Melissa Perez would have accomplished her goal of hitting you in the head with that hammer and killed you, she would have been OK to do that?” LaHood asked.
4:15 p.m. - Harris objected to LaHood’s assertion. Rangel overruled the objection.
“Why did it upset you?” LaHood asked.
“That somebody was willing to take my life away — saying that she (Perez) had the right to protect her property when I was attempting to arrest her for a felony that she committed," Salinas said.
“And you disagreed with that, right?” LaHood asked.
“Yes,” Salinas responded.
LaHood passed the witness. Rangel instituted a short break in the proceedings.
4:33 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom. Ben Sifuentes, a defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, began questioning Salinas.
4:40 p.m. - Sifuentes asked Salinas about an SAPD internal affairs (IA) report that accused Salinas of violating certain policies, which included the kicking of Perez’s front door and hopping over Perez’s patio railing.
Sifuentes said that the report “falsely” accused Salinas of violating those policies stemming from his response to Melissa Perez’s apartment.
Salinas told the court that he disagreed with portions of IA’s report.
4:58 p.m. - Sifuentes asked Salinas about previously sharing information with the prosecution that “they didn’t like.” Salinas clarified some of the details for the court.
“When I mentioned ‘fresh pursuit,’” Salinas said.
“Why didn’t they (the prosecution) like that?” Sifuentes asked.
“Because it, technically, throws their whole argument for exigent circumstances,” Salinas responded.
“So, it destroys their argument about exigent circumstances?” Sifuentes asked.
“Correct,” Salinas said.
“Alright. And they didn’t like that at all, did they?” Sifuentes asked.
“No,” Salinas said.
4:59 p.m. - Sifuentes passed Salinas, the witness, to Neumann and Thom Nisbet, who are both representing ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores.
5:32 p.m. - Nisbet concluded his cross-examination, with Salinas’ agreement, by saying that officers have a right under the law to self-defense and the right to go home at the end of their shift.
Nisbet passed the witness.
5:33 p.m. - Rangel ended court proceedings for the day. The trial is expected to resume at approximately 9:30 a.m. on Friday.
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: