BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – The joint defense of three former SAPD officers asked presiding Judge Ron Rangel to bar state expert witnesses from taking the stand on Monday.
The prosecution planned to call the witnesses, but the defense said they weren’t at the scene of the Melissa Perez shooting in 2023 and could only offer their opinions.
After 10 days’ worth of court proceedings, Rangel instituted a day off on Friday, Oct. 24.
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 Monday’s court proceedings.
9:47 a.m. – A hearing without the jurors’ presence began.
Nico LaHood, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, commenced a line of questioning for SAPD detective Deanna Platt.
Nico LaHood (center), a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos (right), commenced a line of questioning for SAPD detective Deanna Platt on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT)
Platt, who testified on Monday, was the most recent witness when proceedings ended on Thursday.
SAPD Detective Deanna Platt, who testified on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025, was the most recent witness when proceedings ended on Thursday. (KSAT)
9:48 a.m. – LaHood asked Platt about remarks she made to the court on Thursday, namely how she knew the three now-former SAPD officers “were indicted.”
“I said that because it was on the news,” Platt told LaHood. “Everybody on the department knew about it. Our office is aware of it. I mean, we wouldn’t be here if they weren’t indicted for murder.”
9:50 a.m. – LaHood then asked Platt about another remark from her Thursday testimony.
“There was a portion of my questioning to you where I was giving you a scenario, and it was a general scenario,” LaHood said, in part. “You talked about an obstruction, and I said, ‘That wasn’t my scenario.’ … How did you come to that conclusion?”
“Because I took (ex-SAPD) Sgt. Flores’ statement, and he described the exterior,” Platt told LaHood. “He described the porch. He described the window with no screen on it with the glass door next to it.”
9:51 a.m. – The hearing ended. Jurors were on their way to the courtroom.
9:59 a.m. – Jurors entered the courtroom.
10:01 a.m. – The joint defense, which included LaHood, began questioning Platt about her SAPD suspension from 2015.
10:02 a.m. – “So, is it safe to say that the brass, the (SAPD) administration, was wrong in your situation?” LaHood asked.
“Of course, I believe that a certain person was wrong,” Platt said. “I wouldn’t blame the whole administration. I blame one person.”
10:03 a.m. – Because of Platt’s most recent remark, LaHood asked her if it was possible if SAPD’s administration may be wrong about charging and firing now ex-officers Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Villalobos.
“It is possible,” Platt said.
10:12 a.m. – LaHood passed the witness.
10:13 a.m. – Judge Ron Rangel, the presiding judge in this case, excused Platt from the stand.
10:15 a.m. – The prosecution called Garon Foster, a former forensic scientist supervisor with the Bexar County Criminal Investigation Lab, to the stand.
Foster said he retired in February.
Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan began a line of questioning with Foster.
Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan (left) with former forensic scientist supervisor Garon Foster (right) in court on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT)
10:21 a.m. – Lunan approached Foster with a taped envelope.
Foster said he “recognized the packaging” due to his initials and the date on the envelope, which was Sept. 13, 2024.
10:22 a.m. – “Inside this tape-sealed envelope were four smaller tape-sealed envelopes,” Foster told the court. “Each one of those would be marked with a law enforcement agency number and brief descriptions. And then each one of those would be opened, and that is where the alleged apparent bullet fragments were found.”
The larger envelope was opened and revealed the smaller envelopes.
10:34 a.m. – Foster said there was no DNA detected on the bullet fragments he tested.
“Otherwise, either no human DNA was identified on those swabs that were taken from the bullet fragments,” Foster said, in part. “If there was any DNA present, it was beyond any detectable limits of either the quantitation or going through the procedure and trying to attempt a DNA profile.”
10:35 a.m. – Lunan passed the witness to the defense. Jason Goss, a co-defense attorney for Villalobos, began cross-examining Foster.
Jason Goss (center), a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, began cross-examining Garon Foster on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. Also pictured behind Goss is former SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores. (KSAT)
10:42 a.m. – Goss passed the witness to fellow defense attorney Mario Del Prado.
Del Prado is a co-defense attorney for Alejandro.
Mario Del Prado, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, began cross-examining Garon Foster in court on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT)
10:43 a.m. – Del Prado asked Foster if he saw any “bodily tissue” on the bullet fragments he chemically tested.
“If the bodily tissue was blood, that is correct,” Foster said. “But, if it was not blood, for example, something that couldn’t be seen with the naked eye — like saliva — we were able to confirm that with a very specific human DNA test. ‘Would I find DNA present if there was human DNA?’ And those results were either negative or very limiting beyond any kind of detectable limits.”
10:46 a.m. – Del Prado passed the witness to Christian Neumann, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Flores.
Christian Neumann (left), a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores, began cross-examining Garon Foster (right) in court on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT)
10:51 a.m. – Neumann’s line of questioning ended. Rangel excused Foster from the stand.
10:52 a.m. – The prosecution and defense met at Rangel’s bench.
10:54 a.m. – Rangel sent the jurors to lunch. A hearing began without their presence.
10:55 a.m. – Ben Sifuentes, a co-defense attorney for Alejandro, told the court that “the state has failed to kindly disclose any experts” as witnesses.
Ben Sifuentes (purple tie), a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, told the court that “the state has failed to kindly disclose any experts” as witnesses. (KSAT)
10:56 a.m. – According to Sifuentes, the testimony of witnesses who the prosecution did not identify as experts “wouldn’t be relevant.”
11:05 a.m. – Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris said that the state submitted an “amended disclosure of expert witnesses” in September 2025, not October, as Sifuentes claimed moments earlier.
11:14 a.m. – Thom Nisbet, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Flores, told the court that the state’s witnesses, which included additional SAPD officers, would only be “coming in to offer an opinion.”
Thom Nisbet, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores, told the court on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025, that the state’s witnesses, which included additional SAPD officers, would “only coming into offer an opinion.” (KSAT)
“The court needs to understand that puts them in a different category in types of witnesses,” Nisbet said. “This is not a witness with any personal knowledge, not like the officers you heard initially.”
11:20 a.m. – Harris believed Perez was provoked by the responding officers after she retreated to her apartment.
“Officers attempted to cajole, harass, etc., and then called it off. They retreated,” Harris told the court, in part. “Got additional information. Then go back and then resume the harassment that causes Ms. Perez, and the jury sees it, (to) reinforce the door with a chair.”
Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris said that the state submitted an “amended disclosure of expert witnesses” in September 2025, not October, as Ben Sifuentes claimed on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT)
11:21 a.m. – LaHood said Harris’ argument was a “misapplication” of what the three ex-SAPD officers are on trial for.
11:22 a.m. – LaHood believed other officers — who responded to Perez’s apartment before Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos — should be charged for what Harris described.
“I think everyone watching, experts behind me, this Honorable Court and all of us have prosecuted knows that that is a misapplication of the law,” LaHood told the court. “Even if applies to them (the officers on trial), but it doesn’t.”
11:35 a.m. – Rangel granted the defense’s objections “related to any experts that will be offered to testify on officer policy.”
11:36 a.m. – The hearing ended. A lunch break for the prosecution and defense was instituted by Rangel.
12:40 p.m. – Jurors reentered the courtroom.
12:41 p.m. – The state called a friend of Perez to the stand. Due to the judge’s order, KSAT did not identify the witness or show their face.
12:42 p.m. – Harris began interviewing the witness.
12:47 p.m. – Harris asked the witness if the family made any attempts to help Perez with her mental health.
“In May 29th of 2022, (it) was my first time physically seeing her in that condition,” the witness told the court. “That was something that I was not accustomed to seeing her when I would see her. She was not in that mental health state. And so, when I discovered that she was in that situation, I did what I would have done for anyone: call to get her the assistance.”
12:54 p.m. – The witness said Perez was admitted to the Starlite Recovery Center in Kerrville for 30 days.
12:57 p.m. – While in treatment for substance abuse, the witness said Perez was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
1 p.m. – The witness told the court about May 26, 2023, a day when Perez arrived at the witness’ mother’s home. On that day, the witness later called San Antonio police.
“My mom called me, in this instance, and mentioned that she (Perez) had arrived,” the witness said. “She (Perez) didn’t look like she was doing OK. And so, I called, on this day, to SAPD for a welfare check.”
“Did she (Perez) hurt your mother?” Harris asked the witness.
“No. She never hurt my mother,” the witness told Harris.
“Your mother was just concerned about her (Perez)?” Harris asked.
“Yes. My mom was just concerned because she wasn’t accustomed to seeing Melissa in that condition,” the witness said. “That was something new to her.”
1:01 p.m. – Harris asked the witness if they were aware of Perez’s previous arrest history.
“The USB drive that was provided to me shed light on a lot of the things that I did not know,” the witness told jurors.
“So, those were things you did not know?” Harris asked the witness.
“Correct,” the witness said.
1:09 p.m. – The witness told the court that they learned of Perez’s death from a news report.
“I saw the headline — I don’t remember what the headline said — but I saw the apartment complex,” the witness said to jurors. “I knew that that side of the apartment complex is where she resided. And so, I called SAPD. I called 911 to ask if she was the person that was involved in that situation.”
“And, was it her?” Harris asked the witness.
“Yes,” the witness said.
1:10 p.m. – The witness told the court that SAPD met with the family hours after the shooting.
1:12 p.m. – Harris approached the witness and began to show them pictures of Perez.
The witness became emotional.
“It’s hard,” the witness said.
“It’s OK,” Harris said.
This picture of Melissa Perez was shown to the court on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT (photo courtesy of the prosecution))
1:14 p.m. – The prosecution passed the witness to the defense, specifically to Goss.
1:33 p.m. – Goss asked the witness if Perez was capable of “acts or violence” during schizophrenic episodes.
“Taking this as true, what we’ve been talking about, she (Perez) believes random strangers kidnapped her children. She physically attacks them, assaults them. Gets assaulted in return, right?” Goss asked the witness. ”You would agree that, assuming this is true — it’s in the report and she had injuries — that Melissa is capable of unpredictable acts of violence against others?”
The witness asked Goss to rephrase his question.
“When Melissa is in that stage, strangers and other people are at risk of being attacked violently. You would agree with that?” Goss asked the witness.
“Yes, sir,” the witness said.
1:47 p.m. – A private psychiatrist had been hired to help Perez.
Goss asked the witness about Perez and whether she took her medication as directed.
“Even despite that, she (Perez) made the decision not to take her medication. You would agree with that?” Goss asked the witness.
“She made that decision,” the witness told the court. “In our clinical field, we call that, ‘self-determination of the client.’ You can’t force them to do something.”
“That’s right,” Goss said.
1:52 p.m. – Rangel instituted a short break for the court.
2:09 p.m. – Jurors reentered the courtroom.
2:28 p.m. – Goss passed the witness to Del Prado.
2:41 p.m. – Del Prado asked the witness about a family meeting in January 2023, when the witness allegedly said they weren’t “going to enable her (Perez)” anymore.
“As a matter of fact, you said that you weren’t going to enable her anymore by giving her any more money because you were frustrated with the fact that she wasn’t going to the psychiatrist that you had set her up with anymore, right?” Del Prado asked the witness.
“Sir. I never said ‘frustrated’ in those comments,” the witness told Del Prado.
“OK. Did you say, ‘I’m not giving her any more money to enable her?’” Del Prado asked.
“I decided not to enable her,” the witness told the court. “Because up to that point, I was paying rent. I was Ubering her to places. I was buying her medications, picking up her medications, dropping off her medications.”
“It’s one of the most difficult decisions that people make,” the witness continued. “When family members are experiencing mental health illnesses, it’s by far the most difficult decision to make to stop enabling them and empowering them to use the tools in front of them to get better. And so, it was a healthy separation. And it’s not uncommon for someone to say, ‘OK. Up to this point, we’re no longer going to enable. We’re going to empower.’ And that’s what I did, sir.”
Mario Del Prado, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, cross-examined a witness (a friend of Melissa Perez’s) in court on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT)
2:49 p.m. – According to Del Prado, the witness was asked about calling Child Protective Services after learning someone may have been using methamphetamine with a child present.
“That individual (using meth) is her brother, or was her brother,” the witness told jurors, in part. “I knew a history of him.”
2:50 p.m. – Del Prado passed the witness to Nisbet, who did not have any additional questions for them.
2:53 p.m. – Rangel excused the witness from the stand.
2:54 p.m. – Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris called SAPD detective Ronald Soto to the stand. Rangel swore him in.
The prosecution called SAPD detective Ronald Soto to the stand on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT)
2:56 p.m. – Soto identified himself as the lead investigator in the June 23, 2023, shooting of Perez.
2:57 p.m. – It was also Soto’s first-ever SAPD shooting investigation as a lead investigator.
“I was called by my sergeant,” Soto told the court, in part. “He didn’t get into too much detail. He just said there was a shooting. Someone was shot inside a house. Officers were involved with the incident, but he didn’t go into great detail on that at all.”
2:58 p.m. – Soto said he arrived at the scene “maybe an hour after it (the shooting) happened,” which would have been sometime after 3 a.m. on June 23, 2023.
3:10 p.m. – Rangel instituted a short break.
3:26 p.m. – A hearing was held without the presence of jurors.
3:30 p.m. – The hearing ended. Jurors reentered the courtroom.
3:32 p.m. – The prosecution showed video of the scene after the shooting took place in Soto’s presence. Some of the images and video were too graphic for KSAT to air.
3:52 p.m. – Soto told Harris that he reported back to SAPD headquarters after leaving Perez’s apartment.
While there, Soto was in charge of taking Alejandro’s statement and watching his body-worn camera video.
3:53 p.m. – Alejandro did not ask for a doctor or therapist after the shooting, but he did talk to a CLEAT (Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas) attorney.
3:55 p.m. – After Alejandro met with a CLEAT attorney, Soto played Alejandro’s body-worn camera video and discussed the shooting with him.
4 p.m. – Soto began reading Alejandro’s statement to the court.
4:05 p.m. – Soto began reading Villalobos’ statement to the court.
4:18 p.m. – Soto described meeting the Perez family hours after the shooting.
4:23 p.m. – Harris asked Soto, who believed there was “probable cause,” why he charged the three now-former officers.
Soto said watching the body-worn camera footage of all three officers and reading their statements led to him and an SAPD captain to make the decision to charge them with Perez’s death.
4:27 p.m. – After the officers were charged, Soto described the SAPD offices as “somber.”
“It wasn’t easy,” Soto told the court. “These are officers that I’ve worked with, that I’ve seen out there in the streets. I remember them, going to scenes. This was tough.”
Goss objected to Soto’s statement.
“It was real easy for him,” Goss said to the court. “He did it in 16 hours.”
Rangel overruled Goss’ objection.
4:28 p.m. – Alejandro’s body-worn camera video was played before the court.
4:51 p.m. – Alejandro’s body-worn camera video was stopped.
4:52 p.m. – Villalobos’ body-worn began playing before the court.
5:23 p.m. – Rangel ended court proceedings for the day. The trial is expected to restart on Tuesday 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:
Copyright 2025 by KSAT – All rights reserved.