BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – The cross-examination of a San Antonio police detective took all of Day 14 in a high-profile murder trial.
Ronald Soto, who led the investigation into the SAPD shooting death of Melissa Perez in 2023, was the only witness to take the stand on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
After four days of testimony, he was excused from the stand on Thursday afternoon but not before he made another big admission to jurors.
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 Thursday’s court proceedings.
10:52 a.m. - Jurors entered the courtroom.
10:53 a.m. - Ben Sifuentes, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, continued his cross-examining of SAPD detective Ronald Soto.
Soto led the investigation into Melissa Perez’s shooting death by three now-former San Antonio police officers.
11:01 a.m. - Sifuentes asked Soto if he “made an effort” to gather “missing” body-worn camera video from SAPD officer Jonathan Salinas on June 23, 2023.
“I guess not, sir. I don’t remember getting that one, so no,” Soto said.
“OK, so since you failed to do that, that’s another failure on your part to properly investigate, correct?” Sifuentes asked Soto.
“I just didn’t do it, sir,” Soto responded.
11:13 a.m. - Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris objected to Sifuentes asking Soto about a previous, unrelated homicide ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro responded to.
11:14 a.m. - The prosecution and the joint defense team approached Judge Ron Rangel’s bench. Rangel is the presiding judge over this case.
11:20 a.m. - The prosecution and the joint defense team returned to their sides of the courtroom.
11:24 a.m. - Jason Goss, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, asked the court if a statement from one of the 15 SAPD officers be admitted as evidence.
The officer’s statement that Goss referred to belonged to Travis Thompson.
Sifuentes agreed with Goss’ plea to the court.
11:26 a.m. - Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan agreed to admit Thompson’s statement if the defense also admitted Soto’s report.
Lunan described Thompson’s statement and Soto’s report as “hearsay.”
“No, we’re not going to agree to that,” Sifuentes said.
“OK, then. It’s hearsay,” Lunan said. “We object.”
Goss didn’t understand the prosecution’s objection.
“Well, Judge, they already thought it was in evidence, so they obviously didn’t have an objection to it,” Goss told the court. “He told the court that the statement was in evidence already, as a reason to object to what Mr. (Ben) Sifuentes was asking.”
“Which is not a legal objection, Your Honor,” Harris told Rangel. “I was in error and made a mistake, but the statements themselves are contained in officer Soto’s report, which has been marked and has been used for both direct and cross-exam.”
Mario Del Prado, co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, took exception with Harris’ assessment.
“He (Harris) was telling the court that it’s relevant because it’s in evidence,” Del Prado said, in part. “And now he’s saying it’s inadmissible because it’s hearsay? When you have been offering everybody else’s statements that were hearsay?”
11:27 a.m. - Rangel sustained the prosecution’s hearsay objection.
11:38 a.m. - Sifuentes began playing portions of SAPD officer Jesus Rojas’ body-worn camera video before the court.
The video came at the 1:40 a.m. mark, approximately 20 minutes before the shooting of Perez took place on June 23, 2023.
11:49 a.m. - Sifuentes posited to Soto that the detective had “the luxury of four months” to review evidence to “decide whether or not” the SAPD shooting was reasonable.
11:50 a.m. - “I was working on other cases also,” Soto told Sifuentes.
“Sir, sir, sir,” Sifuentes interjected. “Answer my question.”
“I am,” Soto said.
“Don’t be evasive,” Sifuentes said.
“I’m not, sir,” Soto said. “I was just letting you know that I’m working on other cases in between there. You’re making it sound like — ”
“I don’t care whether you were working on other cases,” Sifuentes told Soto. “You had plenty of time to review a decision that they (the ex-SAPD officers on trial) had to make in eight seconds. You would agree with that, yes?”
“I’m answering the question, sir,” Soto said.
“Can you answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’?” Sifuentes responded. “It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’”
“Sir, I’m trying to put it in perspective so they (the jurors) can understand,” Soto said. “You made it sound like I’m only working on that case, sir.”
11:52 a.m. - Sifuentes asked Soto if he put together “what you believed, in your mind, was a reasonable investigation” for the Perez murder case.
“There are variables in all investigations,” Soto told the jury. “Things happen. New information comes up. It’s an evolving thing. In my mind, I thought I did a good investigation.”
11:53 a.m. - Sifuentes passed the witness to Thom Nisbet, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores.
Rangel instituted a short break for jurors, who exited the courtroom.
12:11 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
12:15 p.m. - Nisbet began cross-examining Soto with a frame-by-frame look, via SAPD body-worn camera video, at what Perez and the officers were looking at and doing before she was shot.
12:38 p.m. - A still image from SAPD body-worn camera showed Perez at the 2:02:11 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023, in her apartment with a hammer in hand.
“We’re going to watch that doorframe for that first bullet, OK?” Nisbet said. “If what you (Soto) said is true, we’re going to see Sgt. Flores fire his weapon while Melissa Perez is still in or almost in that hall, correct?”
“Yes, sir,” Soto said.
12:39 p.m. - In the same frame, Flores does not appear to have his weapon raised.
12:40 p.m. - In the next frame at the 2:02:12 a.m. mark, Perez appeared to be “leaning a little forward,” perhaps in a running-like stance, according to Soto.
“She’s taking her first step, running step, from that hallway to where the end of that room is, correct?” Nisbet said.
“Yes, sir,” Soto said.
In the next frame of the body-worn camera, also shown to the court at the 2:02:12 a.m. mark, Perez appeared to take another step forward toward the glass patio door.
12:41 p.m. - “She, Melissa Perez, is compressing the distance (between her and the officers) at a rapid rate, would you agree?” Nisbet asked Soto.
“Yes, sir,” Soto said.
“Can we agree she (Perez) is no longer in the hallway of that apartment?” Nisbet asked Soto.
“We can agree. Yes, sir,” Soto said.
“Can we agree she has run away from the hallway of that apartment?” Nisbet asked.
“She’s running away from it. Yes, sir,” Soto said.
“Have we seen a bullet hit that doorframe on that door?” Nisbet asked Soto.
“No, sir,” Soto said.
12:42 p.m. - In the next frame, according to SAPD body-worn camera, it appeared Perez continued moving toward the officers.
12:43 p.m. - At the 2:02:13 a.m. mark in Flores’ body-worn camera video, Nisbet reintroduced another still image from a different body camera with the same timestamp (seen below) that showed ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores’ facial expression with his weapon raised.
12:44 p.m. - “That’s a face consistent with a human being who believes they are about to get hit in the face with something,” Nisbet said.
“Yes, sir. He looks scared, sir. Yes, sir,” Soto responded.
12:47 p.m. - Another still frame from Flores’ body-camera video showed Perez closer to the apartment’s patio door and a small puff of smoke on a doorframe.
The smoke indicated Flores firing his first shot at Perez.
“So, he (Flores) does not fire in the hallway, correct?” Nisbet asked Soto.
“Correct, sir,” Soto said.
“Or on the first step, correct?” Nisbet asked Soto.
“Correct,” Soto said.
“Or on the second step?” Nisbet asked.
“Correct,” Soto said.
“Or on the third step?” Nisbet asked.
“Correct,” Soto said.
“Or on the fourth step?” Nisbet asked Soto.
“Correct,” Soto said.
“Or on the fifth step?” Nisbet asked Soto.
“Correct,” Soto said.
“Not until the sixth step (by Perez) when there is no more room left,” Nisbet said, in part. “And the hammer is right here (by Perez’s shoulder). That is when he (Flores) fires. That’s correct, isn’t it?” Nisbet said.
“Yes, sir,” Soto said.
12:48 p.m. - Soto agreed with Nisbet that Flores fired his weapon at Perez after waiting “until the decision is necessary.”
“That’s what you want them to do, sir,” Soto told the court.
1:01 p.m. - Nisbet walked toward Flores, who was seated behind the defense team. He asked Flores to stand up next to him.
1:02 p.m. - Nisbet asked Soto about Flores’ June 23, 2023, arrest, which happened hours after Perez was shot and killed.
“And that arrest decision, of Alfred (Flores), that was based on your previous analysis that she (Perez) was in the hallway when Alfred fired, correct?” Nisbet asked Soto.
“I was incorrect on her positioning. Yes, sir,” Soto responded.
1:04 p.m. - Nisbet said more than 800 days have passed since Soto made his initial analysis.
“Eight hundred days to look at that video, get a measuring tape out and do the analysis that we just did live for everybody to watch,” Nisbet said. “You had every single opportunity to do that, correct?”
“Correct, sir.” Soto said.
“And today, for the first time ever, you have seen that your belief was mistaken,” Nisbet said.
“On her (Perez’s) positioning. Yes sir,” Soto said.
Watch Nisbet’s line of questioning alongside former SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores on Thursday afternoon below.
1:07 p.m. - Nisbet passed the witness. Rangel instituted a lunch break.
Jurors left the courtroom.
2:28 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
2:29 p.m. - The state, specifically Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris, began questioning Soto.
2:50 p.m. - Portions of SAPD body-worn camera video from ex-officer Alejandro were played before the court.
The video began playing at the 1:53 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023.
2:53 p.m. - Harris wanted Soto to differentiate from multiple voices heard in the video.
During Goss’ requested and granted voir dire, Soto told him that he wouldn’t be able tell whose voice is heard in the video.
2:54 p.m. - Sifuentes requested an approach to Rangel’s bench.
2:55 p.m. - Court proceedings resumed.
3:13 p.m. - A portion of Villalobos’ body-worn camera video was played before the court, beginning at the 1:57 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023.
3:14 p.m. - Sifuentes objected to the playing of the video.
“I don’t know how many times he’s (Harris) played this video, and other videos, where the same conversation is played out,” Sifuentes told the court, in part. “All this is doing is trying to repeat rehashed testimony.”
3:15 p.m. - Harris offered a response to Sifuentes.
“I am simply going back to the state’s theory and the approach and the plan, as it was executed,” Harris said.
3:17 p.m. - Rangel allowed the state to rephrase its question.
3:22 p.m. - Sifuentes accused the prosecution of suggesting the officers’ behavior was illegal and required a warrant.
“Your Honor, I did not use that term,” Harris told the court.
Sifuentes requested a hearing without the presence of jurors, which was granted.
3:23 p.m. - Jurors left the courtroom. The hearing began.
3:26 p.m. - Del Prado began speaking.
3:27 p.m. - “And now, they’re (the state) trying to circumvent by going into the provocation issue, which the court already said it couldn’t get into,” Del Prado said, in part. “This is so confusing for the jury because there will not be a charge on tactics or alternative measures or anything else this detective (Soto) wants to dream up at this point.”
3:28 p.m. - Lunan said the prosecutors were citing different statutes, regarding “provoking the difficulty” instead of “(in) defense of person.”
3:29 p.m. - Goss did not agree with the state’s theory that the officers provoked Perez “with the intent to shoot and kill her.”
3:34 p.m. - Nico LaHood, a former Bexar County District Attorney and current co-defense attorney for Villalobos, was incredulous at Lunan’s argument.
“Are we insane?” LaHood said to Rangel. “If she (Perez) were to bring up a knife, a shovel, a gun, do what you have to do. Defend yourself. 9-3-2. I mean, David (Lunan) has never made this argument before, Judge.”
“Never have (SAPD) officers killed somebody in broad nighttime,” Lunan responded.
“If we were together, we would review cases like that,” LaHood said to Lunan and the court, in part. “He knows that. This is a disingenuous argument. I’m shocked that David Lunan is making (this argument) before this court.”
3:39 p.m. - Rangel decided to sustain only one objection, regarding to Goss’ argument he made at 3:29 p.m.
The judge instituted an additional break.
3:53 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
4:05 p.m. - Harris passed the witness back to the defense.
Goss began cross-examining Soto.
4:14 p.m. - Soto agreed with Goss that no officer responded to Perez’s apartment on a “mental health call” on June 23, 2023.
“It was a disturbance (call). Yes, sir,” Soto said.
SAPD Chief William McManus previously said that Perez was a having a “mental health crisis” at the time of the shooting.
4:20 p.m. - Goss compared Villalobos’ professional behavior on June 23, 2023, to fellow SAPD responding officer Robert Ramos, who mocked Perez multiple times while at the scene.
“He’s (Villalobos) here, and officer Ramos is out there on the streets, right?” Goss said.
“I understand that, sir,” Soto said.
4:25 p.m. - Soto agreed with Goss that Texas law does not allow for anyone to resist an arrest from a law enforcement officer.
4:27 p.m. - Goss presented Soto with a copy of his arrest affidavit.
5:12 p.m. - Goss asked Soto if he would do anything differently if he were the lead investigator in a future, hypothetical police shooting.
“There are things I could have done differently,” Soto said. “Yes, sir.”
Goss passed the witness. The rest of the joint defense team and prosecution said they did not have any additional questions for Soto.
5:13 p.m. - Rangel excused Soto from the witness stand.
5:14 p.m. - Rangel dismissed jurors for the day, but the defense requested a hearing without the jury’s presence.
Jurors are expected back in the courtroom on Friday morning.
5:15 p.m. - The hearing, which hoped to settle a few questions from both sides, began.
One of the questions included LaHood’s concern about whether the prosecution expected to call another expert witness to the stand.
5:16 p.m. - If the defense desired to bring its own expert witness(es) to the stand, Lunan asked the court if that the witness(es) could have their testimony cleared before they go before the jury.
5:17 p.m. - Lunan, as a representative of the prosecution, told the court that it intends to rest its case on Friday.
5:18 p.m. - Del Prado, acting on behalf of the joint defense team, told Rangel that it would like to ask and have time to make arguments 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.)
The hearing ended.
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: