BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – Tuesday’s court testimony shed new light on how San Antonio police filed arrest warrants for three ex-officers charged in Melissa Perez’s 2023 death.
Ronald Soto, an SAPD detective who led the investigation, told the court that he did not disclose how many times Perez was shot by the officers.
Soto was first called to the stand on Monday.
While more than a dozen shots were fired at Perez, she was only hit by two bullets.
Ex-SAPD officers Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Nathaniel 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 Tuesday’s court proceedings.
9:28 a.m. - Jurors entered the courtroom.
9:29 a.m. - Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris continued his line of questioning for SAPD detective Ronald Soto.
Soto was the lead investigator in the deadly SAPD shooting of Melissa Perez.
9:30 a.m. - Harris resumed the playing of ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos’ body-worn camera video before the court.
The video began at the 1:49 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023.
Ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores was heard having a conversation with Perez.
“Are you going make things more difficult?” Flores said to Perez in the video.
“Do you have a warrant?” Perez was heard asking Flores.
“I’m here to negotiate,” Flores told Perez.
“Do you have a warrant?” Perez asked Flores again.
“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.
9:31 a.m. - Ben Sifuentes, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, interjected during Harris’ pausing of Villalobos’ body-worn camera video.
“I don’t mind that they’re skipping around, but I have a problem if they’re showing videos without proposing a question,” Sifuentes told the court.
“It’s in evidence already, Your Honor,” Harris responded.
Ron Rangel, the presiding judge in this case, overruled Sifuentes’ objection.
Villalobos’ body-worn camera video resumed at the 1:53 a.m. mark.
9:33 a.m. - Villalobos’ body-worn camera was paused.
9:34 a.m. - The body-worn camera video for SAPD officer Maria Salinas, who also responded to Perez’s apartment, was played before the court.
Video began playing at the 1:39 a.m. mark. Salinas arrived at the apartment at the 1:46 a.m. mark.
9:38 a.m. - At the 1:49 mark in the video, Salinas’ interaction with Perez was shown to the court.
“Ma’am, do you want to talk to me?” Salinas asked Perez.
“No, I don’t want to talk to nobody (sic),” Perez said to Salinas. “You need to leave and give us some peace because everybody’s watching me. Everybody’s watching you on camera around the world on national TV. You got that?”
“That’s fine. That’s fine,” Salinas said to Perez in the video. “They’re already watching us, ma’am.”
9:43 a.m. - Sifuentes requested and was granted a voir dire to speak to Soto about Alejandro, Sifuentes’ client.
“In your prosecution guide, you falsely stated that he (Alejandro) could not see inside the apartment at the moment he fired the shots, correct?” Sifuentes said.
“I don’t recall saying that,” Soto said.
“You don’t recall? But if he did say that, and I can show it to you, would you agree that that’s not true?” Sifuentes asked Soto.
“I’d like to see it,” Soto said.
“Sure,” Sifuentes said.
Sifuentes told the court that Soto was making a hasty generalization about all officers’ body-worn camera video view.
Harris argued that he only asked Soto about his specific experience about wearing a body-worn camera, not all officers’ experiences.
9:45 a.m. - Rangel sustained the state’s objection. Sifuentes’ voir dire concluded.
9:47 a.m. - Salinas’ body-worn camera video resumed before the court at the 1:51 a.m. mark.
9:57 a.m. - The video showed Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos shooting Perez.
9:59 a.m. - Salinas’ body-worn camera video was paused. She was seen walking from the scene with another officer.
“At that point, usually when there’s an officer-involved shooting, they take the officer who’s involved with the shooting, and they’ll have them paired with another officer,” Soto told Harris. “And they’ll sequester them from everybody else until they make arrangements to make their statement.”
“And so, she (Salinas) is his (Alejandro’s) escort?” Harris asked Soto.
“Yes, sir,” Soto said.
10:01 a.m. - At the 2:05 a.m. mark in Salinas’ video, less than five minutes after Perez was shot, an interaction between Salinas and Alejandro was shown to the court.
“You alright?” Salinas said to Alejandro, while he stored items into the back of an SAPD vehicle.
“There goes my chances at SWAT,” Alejandro said.
10:03 a.m. - Jason Goss, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, requested and was granted a voir dire to speak to Soto.
10:04 a.m. - Goss asked Soto about the body-worn camera video he viewed as a part of the investigation.
Soto said he reviewed the body-worn camera video of SAPD officers Maria Salinas, Travis Thompson, Jonathan Salinas, Jesus Rojas, Robert Ramos and the three ex-officers currently on trial.
10:07 a.m. - Goss’ voir dire concluded. Harris resumed the state’s line of questioning for Soto.
Beginning at the 1:48 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023, body-worn camera video from ex-SAPD Sgt. Flores was played before the court.
10:14 a.m. - Sifuentes objected to Harris’ question to Soto about what a consent form is. Sifuentes also asked the court for a ruling.
Rangel excused jurors for a brief moment. A hearing began without their presence.
10:14 a.m. - Rangel reminded the prosecution about the witnesses he barred from testifying on Monday.
“State, you’re getting very close to opening that door related to that federal case,” Rangel said during the hearing. “I think with those witnesses yesterday, those experts you wanted to bring in, I think you would have kicked that door wide open. I mean, do you agree with that? The door wide open related to getting that federal case in. Those issues are so closely related, and I feel like you’re starting to approach that door again with that question.”
10:16 a.m. - Harris, speaking on behalf of the prosecution, said it is addressing that question to state law, not federal.
“It is all supported by Texas state law, which is what this jury will have to consider,” Harris told the court.
“What the jury has to consider is, ‘Were the officers’ actions reasonable?’ I mean, that’s it,” Rangel said.
“Yes, sir,” Harris said.
“So, the other stuff — you’re knocking on doors that you wanted to keep certain things out," Rangel said. “I just feel like if you’re going to be focused on the consent of search issue, that’s going to open that door up even further.”
Harris paused before responding to Rangel.
“Your Honor, I will just let the evidence speak,” Harris said. “It is not the intent to do that. I will let the evidence speak, Judge.”
10:18 a.m. - If the state “opens the door” on the federal case Rangel referred to during closing arguments, Sifuentes asked the court to admit “the federal opinion be admitted into evidence at that time.”
Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan then argued that it is not “operating in any kind of bad faith.”
“We’re just trying to play off of what has already been admitted by them (the defense) and what has already been — led us to believe from the proposed jury charge — would be in the jury charge, Your Honor,” Lunan said, in part. “We want to follow the court’s rules, but we’ve got to know what they are. We’ve just got to know what they are.”
10:19 a.m. - Rangel said he will give “an updated jury charge.” He also reminded both sides to focus on what the “ultimate question” in this case is.
“‘Did these officers commit these offenses that are alleged against them?’” Rangel said. “The other stuff is going to cause some issues in this trial, and you want to avoid that. We want to make sure that we try this thing one time.”
10:23 a.m. - Rangel updated the jury charge and printed out copies of it for the prosecution and the joint defense team.
10:25 a.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
10:26 a.m. - Rangel told jurors to disregard the prosecution’s question to Soto regarding a consent form.
The defense then called for a mistrial, which Rangel denied.
The state resumed its questioning of Soto. Flores’ body-worn camera video resumed playing before the court.
10:45 a.m. - SAPD officer Travis Thompson’s body-worn camera video was played before the court.
11:12 a.m. - As a part of Soto’s gathering of evidence, Harris introduced SAPD radio transmissions from June 23, 2023.
11:17 a.m. - Harris asked Soto about his experience about whether the time of day affected the ease or difficulty of obtaining warrants.
Sifuentes objected to Harris’ questioning and requested a hearing without the presence of the jury.
Rangel granted both requests. Jurors exited the courtroom.
11:18 a.m. - Sifuentes explained his objection.
“They’re (the state) getting into dangerous territory where they’re opening the door to the introduction of the magistrate’s (federal court) ruling,” Sifuentes said.
11:21 a.m. - Sifuentes asked again for the admittance of the federal court ruling because the state “has opened the door one too many times.”
11:24 a.m. - Goss echoed Sifuentes’ sentiments.
“And the law is clear that, in this case, with these facts and these circumstances as the court has seen, the officers did not need a warrant to go into that house for an arrest,” Goss said. “And so, the idea that, ‘Oh, it’s an easy thing to do. You can get it day or night,’ and all that stuff is to just to keep putting in the jury’s mind that somehow they needed a warrant. And, in this case, they don’t.”
11:26 a.m. - Harris said he was only asking about what had been already admitted into evidence.
11:40 a.m. - Rangel said he was not making a ruling on the federal court decision just yet.
He also said that he denied another motion for mistrial and will instruct the jury to ignore questions regarding search warrants.
11:43 a.m. - Rangel instituted a short break for the court.
11:54 a.m. - Proceedings resumed inside the courtroom. The hearing without the presence of jurors continued.
11:58 a.m. - The hearing ended. Jurors reentered the courtroom.
11:59 a.m. - Rangel began reading the updated jury charge.
“You have heard testimony and arguments regarding the issue of whether the defendant officers were required to obtain an arrest warrant before entering the complainant’s apartment,” Rangel said. “As a general matter, whether or not police officers are permitted to enter a person’s residence to make an arrest without first obtaining an arrest warrant is an issue of law for the court to decide, and that is usually the subject of a motion to suppress evidence.”
“It is not an issue for the jury to decide in these cases, and all such evidence is irrelevant,” Rangel continued. “You are instructed to disregard all questions, testimony and evidence related to the subject of whether these defendants were obligated to obtain an arrest warrant and are not to consider such evidence for any purpose.”
Harris resumed his line of questioning for Soto.
12:02 p.m. - Harris passed the witness to the defense. Goss began cross-examining Soto.
12:25 p.m. - Rangel instituted a break for lunch.
1:45 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
1:50 p.m. - Goss asked Soto about why he didn’t charge Maria Salinas for pointing her gun at Perez.
1:51 p.m. - “What I’m saying is, in her (Salinas’) judgement at that time, she could have felt that that (Perez) was a threat. Possibly,” Soto told the court. “That’s all I’m saying. But I’m looking at the bodycam, the perspective of where she was at in the house, I’m viewing Melissa as not being a threat, but it just differs. She might have believed it. That’s all I’m saying.”
Goss suggested Soto’s perspective may be colored by the fact that he was watching the bodycam video “from the safety of (SAPD) headquarters.”
“Based on what I’m seeing from the bodycam, the way you’re describing it, you’re making it sound like he (Villalobos) was right there within arm’s reach of Melissa,” Soto told Goss. “And he wasn’t. That’s what I see.”
2:06 p.m. - San Antonio firefighters first responded to Perez’s apartment on a fire alarm call. They later learned Perez cut fire alarm wires and pocked its batteries. SAPD was eventually called to the scene.
After they arrived on scene, SAPD crime scene investigators previously told the court that they were not aware of the stolen fire alarm batteries that were found in Perez’s apartment following the shooting.
Goss asked Soto if he was aware of Perez having the fire alarm batteries in her apartment.
“No, sir. I did not,” Soto said.
2:07 p.m. - Goss revealed that Soto, according to Soto’s report, did not instruct the crime scene investigators to look for the fire alarm batteries.
“The CSIs looked like they had the situation pretty well in hand,” Soto told the court. “Like I said, they’re good CSIs. I rely on them, and they do a great job. That’s why I let them do their job. I try not to get in their way, but yeah, if there’s something I see, in general, I will tell them. But, for the most part, they take care of everything I need, usually.”
“I agree that you were right to let them do their job, but part of their job is taking instruction about what to get, what is important, what is relevant,” Goss said. “They come out there (and) they don’t know that fire alarm batteries are relevant, but you knew that, right? Because that’s what the call was for.”
“I don’t even recall seeing the fire alarm batteries, sir. I’m sorry,” Soto told Goss.
2:24 p.m. - SAPD officer Jesus Rojas’ body-worn camera video was played before the court. It showed SAPD officer Jonathan Salinas entering through Perez’s apartment patio window.
2:50 p.m. - After learning that Perez was shot twice, Soto agreed with Goss that either one officer shot her twice or two officers shot her once.
2:51 p.m. - Soto said he didn’t include how many times Perez was shot (twice) when he filed arrest warrants for Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos.
Goss then pointed out Villalobos’ wife in court.
“You walked a warrant on her husband, and the father of her child for murder,” Goss said. “You understand that?”
“Yes, sir,” Soto said.
“Right,” Goss said. “And you don’t even know if he’s the person that shot (Perez), right?”
“Well, I know he shot, but we don’t know which one hit her,” Soto responded.
“You don’t know if he (Villalobos) caused her death?” Goss asked.
“We don’t know. Yes, sir,” Soto said. “He was a party to the offense.”
2:52 p.m. - Goss asked if Soto indicated in the affidavit that Villalobos was acting as a party to the offense.
“I did not put that in there,” Soto said.
“Did they all get together and have a plan to kill Melissa Perez?” Goss asked. “Did you see any evidence of that?”
“No. Of course not,” Soto responded.
Watch Goss’ full line of questioning of Soto regarding the arrest affidavit below.
3:09 p.m. - Rangel instituted a short break. Jurors left the courtroom.
3:25 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
3:29 p.m. - Goss asked if he believed the reason the officers entered Perez’s apartment patio because Villalobos saw that Perez put the hammer down and could go “get her.”
“He did say that, yes,” Soto said to Goss. “But wouldn’t you consider alternate plans, even when he’s saying earlier, ‘She’s gonna come at me?’ I think even other officers said that. She’s shown that with her behavior — that she’s going to come at them no matter what. What was the rush? What was the driving force to get in there is all I’m saying."
“I get it, and I get it,” Goss said.
“And I’m not trying to be disrespectful. I’m not,” Soto said as he pounded the desk. “But what was the driving force?”
3:33 p.m. - Soto continued to ask Goss “what was the rush,” regarding the officers’ alleged eagerness to get into Perez’s apartment.
“What was your rush to walk a warrant?” Goss said to Soto. “That’s my question.”
“I can ask (you) the same. What was the rush to get into the apartment?” Soto responded.
“What was the rush to walk the warrant?” Goss asked Soto.
“I had probable cause,” Soto said.
“That’s not a reason,” Goss said. “You did not have probable cause that all three people shot and killed Melissa Perez.”
“Objection,” Harris said. “There’s not a question, and (it’s) argumentative.”
“Correct, question mark,” Goss said, to end his previous statement.
“You can answer that,” Rangel said.
3:34 p.m. - Soto continued to claim that Villalobos was a party to the Perez shooting, which he did not indicate in the affidavit.
“What was the rush in walking a warrant?” Goss asked Soto again.
“I’ve already answered it,” Soto responded.
4:51 p.m. - Goss asked Soto if he had any previous “use of force” training.
“Just, in general, talking to detectives over there, they kind of trained me when I’m brand new to the unit. The detective would train us,” Soto told the court. “But, no, I didn’t have any officer-involved shooting training, specifically.”
4:52 p.m. - Goss clarified to Soto that he referred to training when “officers need to use force and what kind of force.”
“I can’t recall any specific training in that,” Soto told Goss.
4:59 p.m. - Goss passed the witness. Rangel instituted a short break for jurors, who left the courtroom.
5:10 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
Sifuentes began cross-examining Soto.
5:12 p.m. - Sifuentes asked Soto if he heard SAPD officer Jonathan Salinas remark about where Perez is in her home via his body-worn camera.
Soto requested Sifuentes to find the soundbite in Jonathan Salinas’ body-worn camera video. It was eventually played before the court.
5:18 p.m. - The soundbite played before the court. Soto asked if he could hear the soundbite again.
5:28 p.m. - After the shooting, Soto admitted that he did not take any steps to contact doctors or any mental health professionals to learn about Perez’s mental health state.
5:34 p.m. - Portions of Flores’ body-worn camera were played before the court.
5:57 p.m. - Soto acknowledged that he did not mention that Perez was close to striking Villalobos in the arrest affidavit.
5:58 p.m. - Vince Gomez, another responding SAPD officer at the scene, claimed that fellow SAPD officer Maria Salinas came close to firing her weapon at Perez.
Soto said he did not follow up with Maria Salinas on Gomez’s claim.
“I could have. Yes, sir,” Soto told Sifuentes.
“You should have, not could have. Should have,” Sifuentes said.
“But I didn’t,” Soto said.
“You should have, yes?” Sifuentes asked.
“I did not ask her that,” Soto responded.
“So, you should have, yes?” Sifuentes asked.
“I’m not going to say I should have,” Soto said. “I did not.”
6:04 p.m. - Rangel called for the end of the day’s court proceedings. The trial is expected to resume on Wednesday 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, 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.
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 the KSAT Open Court video below:
More coverage of this trial on KSAT: