BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – After 20 days of testimony and cross-examination, jurors reached a verdict in the trial of three ex-San Antonio police officers charged in Melissa Perez’s death.
Following approximately 90 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned not guilty verdicts for Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Nathan Villalobos on Monday afternoon.
Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos were on trial for the shooting death of Perez, 46.
The department has since terminated all three from the force.
Below is the timeline from Monday’s court proceedings.
8:12 a.m. - Jurors entered the courtroom.
8:13 a.m. - Judge Ron Rangel, who is presiding over the case, told jurors that he was set to begin reading the charge of the court.
“It’s a lengthy document. It’s got (sic) 45 substantive pages for me to read,” Rangel said.
After Rangel finishes reading the document, he said the prosecution and the joint defense team will make their closing arguments.
8:14 a.m. - Rangel read ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores’ charges, which are murder, deadly conduct and two counts of aggravated assault.
Flores has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
8:15 a.m. - Rangel read out the charges for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro.
Alejandro has been charged with murder, two counts of aggravated assault and deadly conduct.
Alejandro has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
8:16 a.m. - Rangel read out the charges for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos.
Villalobos has been charged with aggravated assault and deadly conduct.
Villalobos has pleaded not guilty to both charges.
9 a.m. - Rangel concluded his reading of the 45-page charge of the court.
The judge instituted a short break for jurors.
9:06 a.m. - The prosecution and joint defense team huddled at Rangel’s bench for a brief meeting.
9:07 a.m. - The brief meeting ended.
9:10 a.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom. The prosecution, specifically Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris, began its closing argument.
9:11 a.m. - Harris began the state’s closing argument with an apology to jurors.
“I’d like to, just out of an abundance of caution, if anything (that) myself, Mr. (co-Bexar County prosecutor David) Lunan, Mr. (Bexar County Assistant District Attorney Daniel) Escobar, said or did (something) you found wrong or inappropriate, we sincerely apologize,” Harris said, in part. “Nothing was ever intended. It may have been a comment in the heat of argument.”
9:12 a.m. - Harris told jurors that this trial is “not an attack on law enforcement and those who have made that commitment.”
“This is one incident in time — being adjudicated and resolved by you all: the citizens of Bexar County," Harris said.
9:15 a.m. - Harris played selected portions of SAPD body-worn camera video from officers Jesus Rojas, Robert Ramos and Jonathan Salinas before the jury.
Some of the video showed Melissa Perez at approximately 12:47 a.m. on June 23, 2023.
9:28 a.m. - In Ramos’ body-worn camera video, Salinas was seen kicking Perez’s front door after she ran into her apartment.
9:29 a.m. - Ramos, whose body-worn camera video continued to play, was also seen kicking Perez’s front door at the 1:48 a.m. mark.
9:35 a.m. - Harris recalled Ben Sifuentes, a co-defense attorney for Alejandro, and his reading of SAPD’s officer guidelines regarding deadly force during cross-examination.
“But I find it interesting that he (Sifuentes) did not read or publish Paragraph C,” Harris said. “’At the point when an officer should reasonably perceive the potential exists that deadly force may be an outcome of any situation, the officer must use reasonable alternatives, if time and opportunities permit. The reasonableness of the action is based on the time available, the opportunity to perform the action and the facts apparent to the officer prior to the incident.’”
9:37 a.m. - Harris questioned Villalobos’ decision to climb into Perez’s apartment patio.
“Did they (SAPD) have to proceed?” Harris asked jurors. “Was the time available to consider other alternatives when they closed the distance, which compress the time, which compels the schizophrenic (Perez) who has been harassed for an hour? And all of it took place within 15 minutes of their arrival.”
“Who compressed the time? Who closed the distance? Who made the choices?” Harris continued.
9:39 a.m. - Harris concluded his portion of the closing argument.
Christian Neumann, a co-defense attorney for Flores, began the joint defense team’s closing argument.
9:40 a.m. - Neumann said it was “revealing” that the state showed the body-worn camera videos from Rojas, Ramos and Jonathan Salinas during its closing argument.
“I counted 10 minutes on a slide called ‘How We Got Here’ showing everything that happened that nobody told them (Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos),” Neumann told the jury. “That’s not fair. That’s the deception here.”
Neumann also made a nod to Harris’ closing argument.
“I won’t waste your time covering (SAPD) policy because it’s not the law,” Neumann told the jury. “And you know that because it’s not in here (Neumann held up a list of the officers’ charges packet). If the judge didn’t put it in the charge, it’s not the law.”
9:42 a.m. - Neumann claimed that the defense provided “almost all the evidence” during the trial.
“The truth came from us,” Neumann said. “It came from our cross-examination of their witnesses. It came from our offering more evidence, the real context of what these officers actually knew that day. That’s their (the prosecution) burden, and they didn’t get there.”
9:48 a.m. - Neumann also discussed Perez’s death investigation led by SAPD detective Ronald Soto.
“We know now what this government, their detective, thinks probable cause is,” Neumann told the court. “And, he (Soto) told you himself: nothing changed since grand jury. No new evidence. That right there tells you it’s game over. They never got past that low, low burden of probable cause.”
9:51 a.m. - Rangel instituted a short break for jurors.
9:58 a.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
10 a.m. - Neumann ended his portion of the closing argument.
Thom Nisbet, another co-defense attorney for Flores, began his closing argument.
10:04 a.m. - Nisbet reminded jurors that “testimony and arguments about warrants and exigency” were not relevant to the ex-officers’ trial.
10:05 a.m. - Like Neumann, Nisbet told the jury that prosecution was responsible for having the burden of proof.
“It’s very easy to lose that here because the story — the evidence — has been told by lawyers that used to be prosecutors, that loved doing this job, and left for different reasons," Nisbet said. “We told you the truth. We promised you the law, and then we delivered it. And all they have promised, at this point, is ‘nuh-uh.’”
“It is very, very important to realize exactly how dangerous that is — when the government, when the State of Texas, who brings the indictment, who brings the charge, who has the burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and the burden to disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt — is reduced to ‘nuh-uh,’ is reduced to policies that are not penal code, is reduced to knowledge that these officers didn’t even have,“ Nisbet continued. ”That’s dangerous.”
10:08 a.m. - Nisbet showed jurors Villalobos’ body-worn camera that depicted Flores’ facial response to Perez running towards the apartment patio door.
“So, I can make Alfred (Flores)’s case very, very simple for y’all,” Nisbet said to jurors. “You literally got to see him go through the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide and Act) loop in two seconds."
10:09 a.m. - Nisbet, citing the 3D recreations and Soto’s testimony, said Flores didn’t fire “until he was out of time (and) out of distance.”
10:13 a.m. - Nisbet, who acknowledged Perez’s family in court, said they were owed a “patient, thorough and thoughtful” investigation into her death.
10:14 a.m. - Nisbet then revealed a small stone structure to the court covered in a cloth called an inuksuk. He said his father gave him the gift before he moved to San Antonio.
“It’s a trail marker,” Nisbet said. “And he (Nisbet’s father) said, ‘So you can always know the way (and) always find your way home.”
Nisbet’s mother also gave him a note to go along with the inuksuk, which he read aloud to the court.
“I shall pass this way but once. And any kindness that I can show to any person, let me do it now, for I shall not pass this way again.”
“Nothing brings their loved one back,” Nisbet, who gave the inuksuk to Perez’s family, said. “And on behalf of Alfred, Eleazar, Nathaniel and their wives and families. ... we’re sorry for your loss. ... I hope y’all find your way home, too.”
10:15 a.m. - Nisbet’s closing argument concluded.
10:16 a.m. - Sifuentes began his closing argument.
10:17 a.m. - Sifuentes mentioned some of SAPD officer Jesus Rojas’ testimony from earlier in the trial when he said he “never got around to” disclosing Perez’s mental illness to the later responding officers.
“He (Jesus Rojas) told you he didn’t do his job,” Sifuentes said. “And there were procedures in place where he could have emergency detained Melissa (Perez) to get her the help that she needed. That’s the tragedy: is that officer Rojas didn’t do his job.”
10:18 a.m. - Sifuentes also alluded to a piece of testimony from former SAPD detective and Sgt. Lisa Miller.
The retired detective told the court about an alleged meeting SAPD Sgt. Edward Pedraza attended in the morning hours after Perez was shot with SAPD Chief William McManus and Capt. Russ Van Geffen.
10:20 a.m. - “If you’re a juror, would you expect (Russ) Van Geffen to come testify and say, ‘No, that’s wrong?’ And, if he didn’t come refute it, you know it’s true,” Sifuentes said. “If Chief (William) McManus didn’t do that, make a decision at eight in the morning (on June 23, 2023), you would expect him to come testify that that didn’t happen.”
10:26 a.m. - Sifuentes concluded his closing argument.
10:27 a.m. - Mario Del Prado, another co-defense attorney for Alejandro, began his portion of his closing argument.
10:29 a.m. - Del Prado claimed Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales started the Civil Rights Division in 2020 in order “to go after police officers.”
“In 2023, what happens a couple years later? Here’s the big chance (the Melissa Perez shooting). It’s unprecedented,” Del Prado told the court. “There’s never been, never been in Bexar County, a prosecution of a San Antonio police officer for murder on duty.”
10:30 a.m. - Del Prado also sounded off on Soto’s investigation.
“‘(Detective Ronald Soto) should be the three scariest words in the English language,” Del Prado said, in part. “...you hear detective Ronald Soto is investigating, that ought to scare the hell out of you. That ought to scare the hell out of you.”
10:31 a.m. - What should scare jurors even more, according to Del Prado, is that this case charged three now-former SAPD officers.
“Unfortunately, these men have never gone home,” Del Prado said. “From that morning, they never got to go home. They’re still living in a limbo created by these men (Bexar County co-prosecutors Daryl Harris and David Lunan).”
10:54 a.m. - Del Prado remarked on the 3D recreation presentation from forensic expert Angelos Leiloglou and subsequent testimony from criminologist Dr. Ron Martinelli.
“Frankly, they were not touched by either one of these prosecutors,” Del Prado told jurors. “They were not touched. Their testimony and their grasp of the science and the evidence was unmatched.”
11:06 a.m. - Del Prado concluded his closing argument.
Rangel instituted a short break for jurors.
11:18 a.m. - Jason Goss, a co-defense attorney for Villalobos, began his closing argument.
11:27 a.m. - Goss argued that the facts were independent of which officers were charged in Perez’s death.
“It could be State of Texas vs. (SAPD officers) Maria Salinas, Travis Thompson, Sgt. (Edwin) Rivera,” Goss told the court. “I told you in opening (arguments): if the people in the front were in the back, and if the people in the back were in the front, these chairs would have been filled by three other good officers.”
11:45 a.m. - Goss asked the jury to “remember” what Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan tells them in his upcoming closing argument.
“Remember whatever he argues, whatever he says,” Goss said. “Whatever he argues and whatever he says. He is the man that told you from the beginning that they (the officers) needed a warrant. And the judge had to tell you, ‘That is not true.’”
11:49 a.m. - Goss ended his closing argument.
Nico LaHood, another defense attorney representing Villalobos, began his closing argument.
LaHood recalled something Lunan said to him.
“Mr. Lunan said something at the beginning of this trial that was accurate, but it wasn’t true. ... He said, ‘You just don’t like the law,’” LaHood told the jury, in part. “(LaHood responded), ‘You know that’s not true, but it was accurate. Because I don’t like the law. I love the law.’”
11:50 a.m. - LaHood explained that he loves the law because it’s “our last hope.”
“We can’t agree on everything, but most people agree that we should have a system that says, ‘Innocent people don’t get accused, and innocent people don’t get ripped from their families and their children and not have (the) ability to raise their kids and go to prison,’” LaHood said. “Everyone can agree on that.”
12:07 p.m. - LaHood showed jurors the moments after Ronald Soto was excused from testifying earlier in the trial.
In the video from KSAT’s livestream coverage of this trial, LaHood was also seen whispering in Goss’ ear.
“I’ll spare you from what I whispered in Jason’s ear: that in all of our years, at that collective table, we’ve never seen a witness — especially a lead detective — sneak out the back,” LaHood told jurors, in part. “Because every witness goes to the investigator and walks out the back with them, and he (Soto) left him hanging. Why? Because he couldn’t.”
12:08 p.m. - LaHood accused Soto of not having the stomach to walk past the ex-officers and their families.
“He didn’t mind sitting above you (the jury), but he couldn’t look eye-to-eye with you and say, ‘I’m proud of my investigation,’” LaHood said. “He couldn’t look at these family members, especially the mamas (mothers) here, and say the same thing. He couldn’t look at the same cameras that he didn’t mind help dragging them (the ex-officers) nationwide.”
“He didn’t have the integrity or the courage to look at those cameras and those family members and say, ‘I’m proud of what I did today,’” LaHood continued. “He snuck out the back. ... That’s why you saw my reaction there.”
12:18 p.m. - LaHood ended his closing argument.
12:19 p.m. - Rangel instituted a short break for jurors.
12:26 p.m. - Jurors reentered the courtroom.
12:27 p.m. - Lunan began his closing argument.
Lunan began his argument with a quote frequently attributed to former President Thomas Jefferson: “The measure of a nation’s greatness is how it treats its most vulnerable members.”
12:28 p.m. - “Melissa Perez was one of our community’s most vulnerable people,” Lunan told jurors. “And her mental health challenges were not her fault. Despite our well-intentioned laws, she did not get to ever see her daughter graduate from nursing school. She didn’t get to see her son turn 18 years of age — on an incident that, frankly, should not have happened to her."
12:35 p.m. - When SAPD officer Jonathan Salinas was shown on body-worn camera getting hit by Perez swinging a hammer, Lunan described Perez’s actions as “force, not deadly force.”
1:11 p.m. - Lunan offered a critique of Del Prado’s criticism of the district attorney’s office.
“We’ve been subject to a lot of abuse, myself and Mr. (Daryl) Harris here, and the Civil Rights Unit that Mr. (Bexar County District Attorney) Joe Gonzales developed,” Lunan said to the court. “The idea in having a unit like this and having your prosecutors look at these cases more carefully is to put sunlight on these cases.”
“The public and the community need to know on these officer-involved shootings whether or not these are being pushed under the rug or if they’re being investigated properly,” Lunan continued, in part.
1:13 p.m. - Lunan made one final appeal to the jury.
“It didn’t need to end this way,” Lunan said. “And your own moral compass has been called upon to decide this case.”
Watch the prosecution and the defense deliver their closing arguments on Monday below.
1:17 p.m. - Rangel instructed jurors to begin deliberations.
The jury exited the courtroom.
2:47 p.m. - KSAT learned that the jurors had reached a verdict.
3:01 p.m. - The jury reentered the courtroom.
Rangel asked the jury’s foreperson if it had reached a verdict, if the jury reached a verdict in each count and if its verdict was unanimous.
The jury’s foreperson answered “yes” to all three questions.
3:02 p.m. - Rangel began reading the jury verdicts for Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos.
The three former officers were found not guilty on all of their charges.
Watch the Monday afternoon reading of each ex-officer’s verdict below.
3:06 p.m. - Rangel excused jurors for the final time.
Following the reading of each verdict, the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office released the following statement to KSAT on Monday afternoon.
“The Bexar County District Attorney’s Office respects the jury’s verdict and has no further comment,” the statement read.
3:16 p.m. - Sifuentes was among the first defense attorneys to speak with reporters following the verdict.
He lamented SAPD, the City of San Antonio and the district attorney’s office’s swiftness to condemn the former officers.
“This is shameful,” Sifuentes said, in part, after the verdict. “I would hope that (the) city council (and) city manager does something about this institutional failure. It’s unconscionable. It never should have happened.”
3:17 p.m. - Sifuentes was asked about how Alejandro, his client, reacted to the verdict.
“He was extremely relieved, and he was elated,” Sifuentes said. “I can understand why he’s grateful.”
According to Sifuentes, there are “remedies at law” that may be explored for the ex-officers. However, he did not elaborate on what those specific remedies would entail.
3:18 p.m. - LaHood offered his reaction to the verdict.
“We knew what the truth was, but you never know until the verdict comes back,” LaHood told reporters. “It was a group effort. All the lawyers with us and behind me and the families. A lot of hard work. I mean, the four-and-a-half weeks in trial is, just, the performance. Obviously, the preparation time and all the research done before that is the key — including our paralegals, our staff. We’re just very grateful."
3:21 p.m. - LaHood said he hoped the trial reminded people “to do what’s right, not what’s easy.”
“Something may look awful, but it doesn’t mean it’s unlawful — as we said during the trial,” LaHood said. “Just pause. Wait. These are not puppets; these are people. And this is not political theater, so we don’t succumb to that. So, I just pray courage over our leaders in this community to do the right thing. Don’t do what’s easy. Do what’s right.”
4:13 p.m. - A San Antonio Police Department spokesperson also sent KSAT a statement, attributed to the City Attorney’s Office, following the verdict.
“The City acknowledges the jury verdict today,” the office said in a statement. “However, the civil litigation and disciplinary processes are separate and distinct from the criminal process and we will continue to defend the City in the civil litigation and the discipline issued for the former officers involved.”
5:54 p.m. - San Antonio Police Officers Association president Danny Diaz thanked jurors “for their time and diligence” throughout the trial in a Monday evening statement to KSAT.
Additionally in the statement, Diaz was also critical of the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office.
“Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales has once again exposed his willingness to engage in prosecutorial misconduct, by his team’s lack of transparency and failure to disclose information during the discovery process, which could have placed a law enforcement officer behind bars,” Diaz said, in part. “This is absolutely unacceptable, and our community has had enough. Our brave men and women in law enforcement answer the calls, risk their lives, and don’t complain as they bravely and honorably serve the citizens of San Antonio. These heinous attacks on our officers must end today!”
“We have complained about the double standard within the department and the fact that wrong decisions are being made due to political pressures,” Diaz continued. “DA (Joe) Gonzales and co-prosecutors Daryl Harris and David Lunan have no place representing our communities.”
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: