BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – A chaotic Friday in court ended with a witness invoking their constitutional right, multiple denied mistrials and why a plan to enter Melissa Perez’s home never materialized.
San Antonio police officer Andrew Chernak, who has not been charged with a crime, told the court that he and other officers came up with a plan to detain Perez on June 23, 2023.
However, Chernak said that plan was never implemented.
Ex-SAPD officers Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Nathaniel Villalobos are on trial for the death of Perez.
Earlier Friday, prosecutors and defense attorneys keyed in on the testimony of another San Antonio police officer who responded to a deadly police shooting in 2023.
Jonathan Salinas, who was among the first officers who responded to Perez’s apartment, took the stand again on Friday morning.
On Thursday, Salinas told the court about a previous encounter with Perez on June 14, 2023, nine days before Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos shot her during a mental health call.
The department has since terminated Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos from the force.
Salinas told jurors on Thursday what he said the prosecution told him: that Perez would have been well within her rights if she killed him as he attempted entry into her apartment.
In response, Salinas told the court that he believed he was within his rights to go in and arrest Perez in her apartment.
During a Friday morning hearing held without jurors, Salinas told the court he also told prosecutors his belief that he was right to go into Perez’s apartment “earlier this week.”
The state claimed that part of Salinas’ Thursday testimony — Salinas’ thoughts about his right to enter Perez’s apartment — was not previously disclosed to prosecutors.
Salinas, who had an attorney appointed on his behalf, later invoked the Fifth Amendment and was later excused from the stand.
Below is a timeline of Friday’s court proceedings.
9:42 a.m. - A hearing was held outside of jurors’ presence.
Jason Goss, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, discussed his concerns about some of SAPD officer Jonathan Salinas’ Thursday testimony with presiding Judge Ron Rangel.
According to Salinas’ testimony, prosecutors told him before the trial that had Perez killed him with a hammer, she would have been within her right to do so.
“Our position is, if a witness, who is an experienced police officer (Salinas), has an opinion like that, that is, obviously, exculpatory to our clients,” Goss said. “We didn’t find out any of this until he’s on the stand on cross-examination.”
Goss said he’d like a ruling on whether or not the prosecution committed a “violation of their duty to disclose.”
9:45 a.m. - Bexar County prosecutor Daryl Harris responded to Goss’ comments.
“The (Salinas’) answer (in court on Thursday) was how he felt about our theory,” Harris said. “There was never a statement that he said he gave to us.”
Harris also told the court that the state met with Salinas at least three separate times.
According to Harris, during those interactions, the state never heard about Salinas’ feelings about their theory nor did the state ask for Salinas’ opinion on their theory.
9:52 a.m. - Ben Sifuentes, a defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, also claimed that Harris had not sent the defense all of the user audit trails of the shooting.
User audit trails would show if and how much SAPD staff members looked at materials (body camera video or documents) regarding the Perez shooting.
“I would assert that it’s an intentional Brady violation,” Sifuentes told the court, referring to the violation when a prosecutor withholds information from the defense. “And the court should, at a minimum, require the witness (Salinas) whether he explained to the state his knowledge or belief and inquire further.”
Harris responded to Sifuentes’ claim. The prosecutor acknowledged a “mistake,” but the error was “corrected.”
“We then found and identified the mistake, corrected it on Monday — because this text exchange (with Sifuentes) happened over the weekend — and acknowledged that it was a mistake in the transposition," Harris told the court.
Rangel allowed the defense to ask additional questions of Salinas without the presence of the jury. Goss began his inquiry.
9:58 a.m. - Salinas told Goss that he believed he was right to go into Perez’s apartment and make a felony arrest.
9:59 a.m. - Salinas also said he told prosecutors “earlier this week” that he believed he was right to go into Perez’s apartment.
“So, when you talked to them, you told them that you felt that it was right and correct for you to try to enter the home and make the felony arrest?” Goss asked.
“Yes,” Salinas said.
10:01 a.m. - Goss passed the witness to Sifuentes.
10:04 a.m. - Sifuentes passed the witness to Thom Nisbet, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores.
10:05 a.m. - Nisbet then passed the witness back to Bexar County prosecutor Daryl Harris.
10:10 a.m. - Harris began questioning Salinas about the statement he gave in an SAPD internal affairs (IA) packet in October 2023.
In the packet, Salinas was asked about a potential “driving force” that compelled Salinas to enter Perez’s apartment on June 23, 2023.
“No,” Salinas answered in the packet. “I attempted to make entry in order to place Ms. Perez into custody for a felony offense. I believe I was given authorization to do so by (ex-)Sgt. (Alfred) Flores.”
10:12 a.m. - In the packet, Salinas also said that he shouldn’t have entered Perez’s apartment.
“At the time, I was under the mistaken belief I was allowed to make entry into the apartment in order to place Ms. Perez into custody, as discussed with Sgt. Flores,” Salinas answered in the packet.
10:17 a.m. - Sifuentes objected to Harris’ line of questioning because he believed that Salinas should be granted immunity for his testimony in court.
10:18 a.m. - Rangel asked for an attorney to be appointed for Salinas. The judge granted a short break during a search for a lawyer.
11:22 a.m. - The court appointed Steven Gilmore as Salinas’ attorney. Gilmore was officially sworn in.
1:18 p.m. - Still without the presence of jurors, Rangel entered the courtroom.
1:19 p.m. - Rangel asked the prosecution and the defense to approach the bench.
1:43 p.m. - After invoking the Fifth Amendment, SAPD officer Jonathan Salinas was excused from the witness stand on Friday afternoon.
1:46 p.m. - Due to Salinas’ testimony and the potential testimony of future witnesses, Sifuentes asked Rangel to declare a mistrial with prejudice in this case.
“Alright, that’s denied,” Rangel told Sifuentes.
1:49 p.m. - Jurors entered the courtroom for the first time on Friday.
1:51 p.m. - The prosecution called SAPD Det. Michael Thornton to the witness stand.
1:55 p.m. - Rangel asked jurors to return to the jury room. A hearing began without the presence of the jury.
1:58 p.m. - In the early morning hours of June 23, 2023, Thornton told the court that he took written statements from two SAPD officers who responded to the Perez shooting.
Thornton also said he did not give any directives to officers who responded to the shooting.
Prosecutor David Lunan passed the witness.
2:08 p.m. - Rangel instituted a short break.
2:15 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom. Ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores’ body-worn camera was shown to the court.
The video began at the 1:37 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023.
2:23 p.m. - According to Flores’ body-worn camera video, Flores exited his SAPD patrol vehicle at Perez’s apartment complex at the 1:48 a.m. mark.
2:26 p.m. - At the 1:50 a.m. mark in the video, Flores walked up to Perez’s apartment patio fence and began talking to her.
“Do you have a warrant?” Perez was heard asking multiple times.
“No, we don’t,” Flores told Perez in the video.
“OK, so you can’t come in,” Perez said.
“You assaulted one of my officers?” Flores asked her.
“No, I didn’t. They assaulted me,” Perez said.
2:35 p.m. - Flores turned off audio for the body camera at the 1:59 a.m. mark.
2:37 p.m. - Flores flipped body camera video’s audio function back on at the 2 a.m. mark. The sergeant asked several officers to move back and away from the patio, except for Alejandro, Villalobos and another officer.
2:38 p.m. - At the 2:02 a.m. mark, Villalobos began attempting to hop over Perez’s patio railing.
“You ain’t got no warrant,” Perez said from her window.
“Just go. Just go. Just go,” Flores told Villalobos.
Shots rang out. Flores drew his weapon.
2:42 p.m. - Flores’ body-camera video was paused. Thornton, who was not asked any questions about the video, was excused from the stand.
2:43 p.m. - The prosecution called Andrew Chernak, another SAPD officer who responded to Perez’s apartment on June 23, 2023, to the witness stand.
2:46 p.m. - Chernak told the court that he was in the Loop 410 and South Zarzamora Street area when he began responding to Perez’s apartment in the 6200 block of Old Pearsall Road.
2:51 p.m. - Chernak said there were “several” plans that Flores discussed with the officers in terms of entering Perez’s apartment.
“It seemed like we were only going to try to get her out of the apartment,” Chernak said. “The plan that we had come up with involved a distraction to get her back into one of the back bedrooms, to confine her in a smaller space. Everything that we talked about was non-lethal. If we needed to, we could tase her from there. Whether it was to take her to jail or take her to a hospital, or whatever, that was the plan. Or the idea, anyway.”
Chernak understood the idea as the “final” plan.
“I said (to Flores), ‘Maybe we needed to rethink this a little bit and come up with an idea to get her into that back bedroom,’” Chernak said.
2:53 p.m. - Chernak described a two-pronged plan: a group of officers by the apartment patio and another group of officers, including Chernak, who would attempt to go in through a bedroom window.
“It was my understanding, they said that the patio door was unlocked, so that they were going to try and go in there and approach her and tase her (Perez),” Chernak told the court. “If that didn’t work, then there was a possibility that we may have gone through the bedroom window and come up behind her, if she stayed up in the living room.”
2:56 p.m. - When pressed by Harris, Chernak said he did not get official guidance to implement the plan.
“I was about to step back and check with them,” Chernak said. “And that’s when the shooting started. It surprised the heck out of me, to put it politely.”
3:01 p.m. - After the shooting, Chernak said he was the first officer to go through one of the back windows.
“As we came around the corner into the living room, Ms. Perez had slumped to the ground,” Chernak said. “The other officers had come in through the porch door and were assisting her and rendering aid.”
3:05 p.m. - Body-worn camera video from Chernak was played before the court.
At the 1:46 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023, in the video, Chernak was seen getting out of his SAPD vehicle upon arrival at Perez’s apartment complex.
3:08 p.m. - However, Sifuentes asked the court to approach the bench without the presence of the jury. Rangel instituted a short break for jurors.
3:09 p.m. - Sifuentes asked the court if the state will offer immunity to Chernak because his body-worn camera showed him entering Perez’s apartment.
“If he wishes immunity, we will agree to give him immunity,” Lunan said.
“I think that we should appoint an attorney to him to inquire so he can make an informed decision,” Sifuentes told the court.
3:11 p.m. - Gilmore was asked to serve as Chernak’s attorney. In the process, Sifuentes asked for this case to end in a mistrial, which Rangel denied.
3:34 p.m. - Chernak’s body-worn camera video resumed playing in the jury’s presence.
3:51 p.m. - At the 2 a.m. mark in the video, approximately one minute before shots rung out, Chernak approached one of Perez’s bedroom windows.
3:52 p.m. - After jumping through one of Perez’s bedroom windows, Chernak yelled to his fellow responding officers, “We’re in. We’re in. We’re in.”
4:27 p.m. - Harris passed the witness to the defense, specifically Goss.
4:51 p.m. - Chernak clarified for the court that it was Alejandro who told him that Perez’s patio door was unlocked.
“Whatever was happening over there (near Perez’s patio), like I said, I couldn’t see it. I’d don’t know what happened,” Chernak said. “And nobody told us.”
5:06 p.m. - Salinas’ body-worn camera video when he was struck by Perez’s hammer was played for Chernak.
5:20 p.m. - Goss passed the witness to Sifuentes.
5:54 p.m. - Rangel told the court that proceedings have reached the end for the day. The trial is expected to resume at 10:30 a.m. on Monday.
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: