SAN ANTONIO – The third day in the joint trial of three ex-San Antonio police officers concluded Tuesday evening after an emotional Day 2.
For the first time on Monday, jurors were able to see and hear Melissa Perez just hours before the now-former SAPD officers shot and killed her on June 23, 2023.
Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Nathaniel Villalobos have each been charged in connection with Perez’s death during a mental health call at her Southwest Side apartment.
The department has since terminated all three officers from the force.
Below is a timeline of events from Tuesday’s court proceedings.
12:51 p.m. – Jurors entered the courtroom.
12:55 p.m. – The prosecution began its cross-examination of SAPD officer Jesus Rojas.
1 p.m. – Body-worn camera footage from SAPD officer Robert Ramos was played before the court.
According to the video, Ramos got out of his SAPD patrol vehicle at 12:48 a.m. on June 23, 2023. He walked towards Perez, who was accompanied by a dog.
Perez admitted to authorities that she cut wires to a fire alarm.
Moments after Perez saw Ramos arrive, she turned around and said to the dog, “Let’s go.”
“Hey, lady. Get over here,” Ramos said to Perez.
After walking casually, Perez was seen running back toward her apartment. Ramos chased after Perez.
When Ramos caught up to Perez, she went inside her apartment and closed the front door. Perez left the dog outside the apartment with the officers.
Ramos and Rojas were outside Perez’s apartment. They knocked on her door and attempted to call out to her.
1:07 p.m. – As the body camera footage continued, Ramos is heard saying, “Housekeeping?” twice to get Perez’s attention at the 12:58 a.m. mark in the video.
1:08 p.m. – Ramos reached out and knocked on Perez’s door seven times. Perez responded by knocking on her door seven times from inside her apartment.
1:09 p.m. – Ramos’ body camera video was paused. Felony Criminal Trial Division Chief David Lunan, who is representing the prosecution, resumed questioning of Rojas.
Lunan asked Rojas about what de-escalation means to him as an officer.
“Is that a technique (de-escalation) that you employed in your first meeting with her (Perez)?” Lunan asked Rojas.
“Yes, sir,” Rojas said.
“And the actions that we’re seeing from officer Ramos (in the body camera video). Would you say that is in line of de-escalating a situation?” Lunan asked Rojas.
“No, sir,” Rojas said.
1:11 p.m. – Ramos’ body camera video resumed play before the court. Ramos was seen using an unidentified object to bang on Perez’s door at least an additional 60 times by KSAT’s count.
Rojas called out to Perez one final time before both he and Ramos walked away from her apartment’s front door and towards her apartment patio.
There, the officers found Perez, who saw them through her patio window.
“Are you even Melissa?” Ramos said to Perez in the video. “Are you a gang member? You look like a gang member.”
“Whatever, bro. Whatever,” Perez said to Ramos. “You don’t got (sic) a warrant, so leave me alone. You’re harassing me.”
“Melissa, Melissa. Come talk to us about what happened,” Rojas said.
“I’m done,” Perez said.
Both officers walked away from Perez’s patio. According to the video, Ramos walked back to Perez’s front door.
1:17 p.m. – In the body camera video, Ramos was rejoined by Rojas by Perez’s front door. They walked back to the patio where a third SAPD officer joined Ramos and Rojas.
1:23 p.m. – As the video continued playing before the court, Perez told the responding officers she was not the only person in her apartment.
At the 1:20 a.m. mark in the video, Ramos asked Perez if she was “diagnosed with any mental illness.” Perez, who was not visible in this part of the bodycam video, did not respond to Ramos’ questions.
At the 1:22:58 a.m. mark in the video, Ramos turned off his body camera.
1:28 p.m. – Lunan asked Rojas if he knew why Ramos turned off his body camera.
“I would guess he turned it off because it was the end of the call,” Rojas said.
“It was the end of the call?” Lunan asked.
“Yeah,” Rojas said.
Rojas then told the court that his body-worn camera, which was seen in court on Monday, was turned off at “about the same time.”
“And what was the reason that you turned off your body-worn camera?” Lunan asked.
“It was the end of the call,” Rojas said.
“And why was it the end of the call?” Lunan asked.
“Officer (Johnathan) Salinas went and told me he was going to write up a criminal mischief report and list her (Perez) as a suspect,” Rojas said.
“Write it up as a report and move on,” Lunan responded.
“Yes sir,” Rojas said.
1:30 p.m. – Rojas identified ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores as Salinas’ supervisor at the scene.
1:40 p.m. – More body camera video footage was played before the court.
In the video, at the 1:38 a.m. mark, an SAPD officer told Perez through a window to “open the door or (we’re) gonna kick it down.”
“You don’t have no (sic) right,” Perez told the officer.
Multiple officers then walked to Perez’s front door. An officer stepped in front of the camera and began preparing to kick the door.
“You wanna stretch first?” an SAPD officer said.
The kicking officer then kicked Perez’s front door 11 times before he stopped.
Ramos then began kicking Perez’s front door.
After his first kick against the door, the body camera fell off of Ramos. The camera was reinstalled on Ramos’ chest equipment.
An additional five kicks from Ramos caused the camera to fall to the ground for a second time.
After reinstalling the camera, Ramos then kicked the door three more times before he heard a noise coming from Perez’s patio. The noise was Perez’s voice.
1:43 p.m. – When Ramos ran to the patio, at the 1:40 a.m. mark in the video, he found one officer who stood in Perez’s patio pointing a weapon. A second officer was seen standing in the grass behind the patio fence.
“You don’t got no (sic) warrant,” Perez said to officers. “You don’t got no (sic) warrant.”
“Come open the door,” an SAPD officer said to Perez.
“No,” Perez responded.
Ramos then hopped over the patio fence and into the patio area with the first officer. The first officer appeared to be pointing a Taser in Perez’s direction, despite her remaining in her apartment.
“We’re going to get you, Melissa,” one of the officers told Perez, according to the body camera footage.
“I don’t give a f—,” Perez said. “Y’all are harassing me. You’re harassing me in my apartment.”
“You’re going to get tased,” an officer told Perez.
Eventually, the two officers hopped out of Perez’s patio, but all three officers remained behind the patio fence.
1:52 p.m. – Alfred Flores arrived, identified himself and began a conversation with Perez at the 1:50 a.m. mark of the body camera footage.
At this point in the video, there are at least seven SAPD officers at the scene.
2:07 p.m. – According to Ramos’ body camera footage, he was near the window of one of Perez’s bedrooms while most of the other officers remained near her patio.
From Ramos’ perspective, at the 2:02 a.m. mark, five gunshots rang out to his right and a window was broken.
Ramos then walked over to the area behind Perez’s patio fence where the other officers were. Ten more gunshots were heard.
“Get in. Get in. Get in,” an officer was heard saying, referring to SAPD officers entering Perez’s apartment.
“We’re in,” another officer said in the video.
2:12 p.m. – According to his body camera video, Ramos knocked on the front door of Perez’s next-door neighbors at the 2:07 a.m. mark on June 23, 2023.
“Can I make sure everyone’s OK real quick?” Ramos told Perez’s neighbors. “Just make sure because something just happened right now. I need to make sure everyone’s OK.”
Ramos entered the neighbor’s apartment and then left.
“Everyone there is fine,” Ramos told another officer.
2:20 p.m. – Judge Ron Rangel, who is presiding over the trial, instituted a short break for jurors.
3:45 p.m. – Jurors returned to the courtroom.
3:46 p.m. – The prosecution passed Rojas, the witness, to the joint defense. Villalobos’ defense attorney Nico LaHood began his cross-examination of Rojas.
3:52 p.m. – Due to the door where the fire alarm wires were housed, LaHood asserted that Perez committed “burglary of a building” when those wires were cut. Burglary of a building would be considered a state jail felony.
Rojas agreed with LaHood’s assertion.
“But, at that time, you weren’t thinking ‘burglary of a building,’ right? LaHood asked Rojas.
“No, sir,” Rojas said.
“But we have evidence, dare I say, ‘probable cause,’ that a burglary of a building occurred, right?” LaHood asked Rojas.
“Yes, sir,” Rojas said.
LaHood later opined that officers, including Rojas, had the “legal authority” to arrest Perez and “didn’t have to talk to her” on June 23, 2023.
Rojas agreed with LaHood’s assertion.
3:56 p.m. – When pressed by LaHood, Rojas said he wanted to wait for backup instead of taking Perez into custody.
“Two officers is better than one,” Rojas told the court. “I don’t know exactly what was going to happen. So, I was waiting for a couple officers to show up.”
4 p.m. – LaHood asserted that Perez could have been apprehended due to the criminal mischief, “burglary of a building” or for emergency detention purposes.
“You wanted her to follow you back to your vehicle and you had not patted her down for weapons,” LaHood said to Rojas.
“No, sir,” Rojas said.
“So, theoretically, she could had whatever she used to cut those wires and stabbed you from behind?” LaHood asked Rojas.
“I guess so,” Rojas said.
When LaHood asked Rojas why he allowed Perez to walk behind him, the officer said she was “cooperative” and was not “too much of a threat” while Rojas continued to wait for backup.
4:01 p.m. – LaHood asked if the defense and prosecution could approach Rangel’s bench.
4:09 p.m. – Jurors left the courtroom. A short hearing, which was held without their presence, also had Rojas answering questions.
4:10 p.m. – Rojas told LaHood that he did not look up Perez’s criminal record. He clarified that he only looked up previous 911 calls made to her apartment complex.
4:14 p.m. – Jurors reentered the courtroom.
4:15 p.m. – Rojas said he did not detain Perez because he “was walking her to a (police) vehicle.”
“So, she was free to leave?” LaHood asked.
“Yes, sir,” Rojas said.
“So, why didn’t you let her leave then?” LaHood asked.
“I asked her to walk to the vehicle,” Rojas said. “I was still talking to her.”
“I understand, sir, but when she ran off, you and officer Ramos run after her,” LaHood said. “Why are you running after a free woman?”
“Like I said, I was still investigating what was going on, as far as what I was going to do,” Rojas said.
4:16 p.m. – LaHood continued his line of questioning.
“When she ran off, you and officer Ramos ran after her, right?” LaHood said to Rojas, who agreed. “You weren’t running after a woman that was not detained; you ran after a woman that had been detained, correct?”
Rojas maintained that Perez had not been detained because he “was talking to her still.”
LaHood then accused Rojas and Ramos of violating SAPD policy when they chased after Perez because, according to LaHood, their SAPD manual “does not say that cops can just chase after free people.”
“I’d have to read the policy,” Rojas said.
4:23 p.m. – LaHood began asking questions about Ramos’ behavior showed to the court in his body camera video. Rojas agreed that Ramos’ “housekeeping” and “Are you a gang member?” remarks escalated SAPD’s interaction with Perez.
LaHood said the defense would call Ramos to the stand at some point in the trial.
4:59 p.m. – LaHood referenced a “shield” that was present on June 23, 2023. He used a nondescript shield for a live demonstration with Villalobos.
According to LaHood, the shield was used for “ballistic projectile” protection, not for hammers or knives.
5:11 p.m. – LaHood passed the witness to fellow defense attorney Ben Sifuentes, who is representing Eleazar Alejandro.
5:18 p.m. – Sifuentes asserted that Rojas should have notified the dispatcher that the Melissa Perez call was a “mental health call.”
“You failed to follow the general manual, didn’t you?” Sifuentes asked Rojas.
“I guess, yes,” Rojas said.
Because Rojas did not notify the dispatcher regarding the mental health situation, Sifuentes believed Alejandro, Flores, Villalobos and other officers didn’t have all of the necessary information upon their arrival to the scene.
5:33 p.m. – The prosecution and defense attorneys approached the bench.
5:57 p.m. – Court proceedings had concluded for the day. Day 4 of the trial is expected to begin at 1 p.m. on Wednesday.
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 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 379th Criminal District Court Judge Ron Rangel.
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:
Copyright 2025 by KSAT – All rights reserved.