BEXAR COUNTY, Texas \u2013 The joint defense of three former SAPD officers asked presiding Judge Ron Rangel to bar state expert witnesses from taking the stand on Monday. <\/p>\n
The prosecution planned to call the witnesses, but the defense said they weren\u2019t at the scene of the Melissa Perez shooting in 2023 and could only offer their opinions.<\/p>\n
After 10 days\u2019 worth of court proceedings, Rangel instituted a day off on Friday, Oct. 24. <\/p>\n
Ex-SAPD officers Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Nathaniel Villalobos are on trial for the shooting death of Perez, 46. <\/p>\n
The department has since terminated Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos from the force.<\/p>\n
Below is the timeline from Monday\u2019s court proceedings. <\/p>\n
9:47 a.m. – A hearing without the jurors\u2019 presence began. <\/p>\n
Nico LaHood, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Nathaniel Villalobos, commenced a line of questioning for SAPD detective Deanna Platt. <\/p>\n
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)<\/p>\n
Platt, who testified on Monday, was the most recent witness when proceedings ended on Thursday. <\/p>\n
SAPD Detective Deanna Platt, who testified on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025, was the most recent witness when proceedings ended on Thursday. (KSAT)<\/p>\n
9:48 a.m. – LaHood asked Platt about remarks she made to the court on Thursday<\/a>, namely how she knew the three now-former SAPD officers \u201cwere indicted.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI said that because it was on the news,\u201d Platt told LaHood. \u201cEverybody on the department knew about it. Our office is aware of it. I mean, we wouldn\u2019t be here if they weren\u2019t indicted for murder.\u201d <\/p>\n 9:50 a.m. – LaHood then asked Platt about another remark from her Thursday testimony. <\/p>\n \u201cThere was a portion of my questioning to you where I was giving you a scenario, and it was a general scenario,\u201d LaHood said, in part. \u201cYou talked about an obstruction, and I said, \u2018That wasn\u2019t my scenario.\u2019 … How did you come to that conclusion?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBecause I took (ex-SAPD) Sgt. Flores\u2019 statement, and he described the exterior,\u201d Platt told LaHood. \u201cHe described the porch. He described the window with no screen on it with the glass door next to it.\u201d <\/p>\n 9:51 a.m. – The hearing ended. Jurors were on their way to the courtroom. <\/p>\n 9:59 a.m. – Jurors entered the courtroom. <\/p>\n 10:01 a.m. – The joint defense, which included LaHood, began questioning Platt about her SAPD suspension from 2015. <\/p>\n 10:02 a.m. – \u201cSo, is it safe to say that the brass, the (SAPD) administration, was wrong in your situation?\u201d LaHood asked. <\/p>\n \u201cOf course, I believe that a certain person was wrong,\u201d Platt said. \u201cI wouldn\u2019t blame the whole administration. I blame one person.\u201d <\/p>\n 10:03 a.m. – Because of Platt\u2019s most recent remark, LaHood asked her if it was possible if SAPD\u2019s administration may be wrong about charging and firing now ex-officers Eleazar Alejandro, Alfred Flores and Villalobos. <\/p>\n \u201cIt is possible,\u201d Platt said. <\/p>\n 10:12 a.m. – LaHood passed the witness. <\/p>\n 10:13 a.m. – Judge Ron Rangel, the presiding judge in this case, excused Platt from the stand. <\/p>\n 10:15 a.m. – The prosecution called Garon Foster, a former forensic scientist supervisor with the Bexar County Criminal Investigation Lab, to the stand. <\/p>\n Foster said he retired in February. <\/p>\n Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan began a line of questioning with Foster. <\/p>\n Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan (left) with former forensic scientist supervisor Garon Foster (right) in court on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT)<\/p>\n 10:21 a.m. – Lunan approached Foster with a taped envelope. <\/p>\n Foster said he \u201crecognized the packaging\u201d due to his initials and the date on the envelope, which was Sept. 13, 2024.<\/p>\n 10:22 a.m. – \u201cInside this tape-sealed envelope were four smaller tape-sealed envelopes,\u201d Foster told the court. \u201cEach 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.\u201d <\/p>\n The larger envelope was opened and revealed the smaller envelopes. <\/p>\n 10:34 a.m. – Foster said there was no DNA detected on the bullet fragments he tested. <\/p>\n \u201cOtherwise, either no human DNA was identified on those swabs that were taken from the bullet fragments,\u201d Foster said, in part. \u201cIf 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.\u201d <\/p>\n 10:35 a.m. – Lunan passed the witness to the defense. Jason Goss, a co-defense attorney for Villalobos, began cross-examining Foster. <\/p>\n 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)<\/p>\n 10:42 a.m. – Goss passed the witness to fellow defense attorney Mario Del Prado. <\/p>\n Del Prado is a co-defense attorney for Alejandro. <\/p>\n 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)<\/p>\n 10:43 a.m. – Del Prado asked Foster if he saw any \u201cbodily tissue\u201d on the bullet fragments he chemically tested. <\/p>\n \u201cIf the bodily tissue was blood, that is correct,\u201d Foster said. \u201cBut, if it was not blood, for example, something that couldn\u2019t be seen with the naked eye \u2014 like saliva \u2014 we were able to confirm that with a very specific human DNA test. \u2018Would I find DNA present if there was human DNA?\u2019 And those results were either negative or very limiting beyond any kind of detectable limits.” <\/p>\n 10:46 a.m. – Del Prado passed the witness to Christian Neumann, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Flores. <\/p>\n 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)<\/p>\n 10:51 a.m. – Neumann\u2019s line of questioning ended. Rangel excused Foster from the stand. <\/p>\n 10:52 a.m. – The prosecution and defense met at Rangel\u2019s bench. <\/p>\n 10:54 a.m. – Rangel sent the jurors to lunch. A hearing began without their presence. <\/p>\n 10:55 a.m. – Ben Sifuentes, a co-defense attorney for Alejandro, told the court that \u201cthe state has failed to kindly disclose any experts\u201d as witnesses. <\/p>\n Ben Sifuentes (purple tie), a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, told the court that \u201cthe state has failed to kindly disclose any experts\u201d as witnesses. (KSAT)<\/p>\n 10:56 a.m. – According to Sifuentes, the testimony of witnesses who the prosecution did not identify as experts \u201cwouldn\u2019t be relevant.\u201d <\/p>\n 11:05 a.m. – Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris said that the state submitted an \u201camended disclosure of expert witnesses\u201d in September 2025, not October, as Sifuentes claimed moments earlier. <\/p>\n 11:14 a.m. – Thom Nisbet, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Flores, told the court that the state\u2019s witnesses, which included additional SAPD officers, would only be \u201ccoming in to offer an opinion.\u201d <\/p>\n Thom Nisbet, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD Sgt. Alfred Flores, told the court on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025, that the state\u2019s witnesses, which included additional SAPD officers, would \u201conly coming into offer an opinion.\u201d (KSAT)<\/p>\n \u201cThe court needs to understand that puts them in a different category in types of witnesses,\u201d Nisbet said. \u201cThis is not a witness with any personal knowledge, not like the officers you heard initially.\u201d <\/p>\n 11:20 a.m. – Harris believed Perez was provoked by the responding officers<\/a> after she retreated to her apartment. <\/p>\n \u201cOfficers attempted to cajole, harass, etc., and then called it off. They retreated,\u201d Harris told the court, in part. \u201cGot 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.\u201d <\/p>\n Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris said that the state submitted an \u201camended disclosure of expert witnesses\u201d in September 2025, not October, as Ben Sifuentes claimed on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT)<\/p>\n 11:21 a.m. – LaHood said Harris\u2019 argument was a \u201cmisapplication\u201d of what the three ex-SAPD officers are on trial for. <\/p>\n 11:22 a.m. – LaHood believed other officers \u2014 who responded to Perez\u2019s apartment before Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos \u2014 should be charged for what Harris described. <\/p>\n \u201cI think everyone watching, experts behind me, this Honorable Court and all of us have prosecuted knows that that is a misapplication of the law,\u201d LaHood told the court. \u201cEven if applies to them (the officers on trial), but it doesn\u2019t.\u201d <\/p>\n 11:35 a.m. – Rangel granted the defense\u2019s objections \u201crelated to any experts that will be offered to testify on officer policy.\u201d <\/p>\n 11:36 a.m. – The hearing ended. A lunch break for the prosecution and defense was instituted by Rangel. <\/p>\n 12:40 p.m. – Jurors reentered the courtroom. <\/p>\n 12:41 p.m. – The state called a friend of Perez to the stand. Due to the judge\u2019s order, KSAT did not identify the witness or show their face. <\/p>\n 12:42 p.m. – Harris began interviewing the witness. <\/p>\n 12:47 p.m. – Harris asked the witness if the family made any attempts to help Perez with her mental health. <\/p>\n \u201cIn May 29th of 2022, (it) was my first time physically seeing her in that condition,\u201d the witness told the court. \u201cThat 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.\u201d <\/p>\n 12:54 p.m. – The witness said Perez was admitted to the Starlite Recovery Center in Kerrville for 30 days. <\/p>\n 12:57 p.m. – While in treatment for substance abuse, the witness said Perez was diagnosed with schizophrenia. <\/p>\n 1 p.m. – The witness told the court about May 26, 2023, a day when Perez arrived at the witness\u2019 mother\u2019s home. On that day, the witness later called San Antonio police. <\/p>\n \u201cMy mom called me, in this instance, and mentioned that she (Perez) had arrived,\u201d the witness said. \u201cShe (Perez) didn\u2019t look like she was doing OK. And so, I called, on this day, to SAPD for a welfare check.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cDid she (Perez) hurt your mother?\u201d Harris asked the witness. <\/p>\n \u201cNo. She never hurt my mother,\u201d the witness told Harris. <\/p>\n \u201cYour mother was just concerned about her (Perez)?\u201d Harris asked. <\/p>\n \u201cYes. My mom was just concerned because she wasn\u2019t accustomed to seeing Melissa in that condition,\u201d the witness said. \u201cThat was something new to her.\u201d <\/p>\n 1:01 p.m. – Harris asked the witness if they were aware of Perez\u2019s previous arrest history. <\/p>\n \u201cThe USB drive that was provided to me shed light on a lot of the things that I did not know,\u201d the witness told jurors. <\/p>\n \u201cSo, those were things you did not know?\u201d Harris asked the witness. <\/p>\n \u201cCorrect,\u201d the witness said. <\/p>\n 1:09 p.m. – The witness told the court that they learned of Perez\u2019s death from a news report. <\/p>\n \u201cI saw the headline \u2014 I don\u2019t remember what the headline said \u2014 but I saw the apartment complex,” the witness said to jurors. \u201cI 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.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cAnd, was it her?\u201d Harris asked the witness. <\/p>\n \u201cYes,\u201d the witness said. <\/p>\n 1:10 p.m. – The witness told the court that SAPD met with the family hours after the shooting. <\/p>\n 1:12 p.m. – Harris approached the witness and began to show them pictures of Perez. <\/p>\n The witness became emotional. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s hard,\u201d the witness said. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s OK,\u201d Harris said. <\/p>\n This picture of Melissa Perez was shown to the court on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT (photo courtesy of the prosecution))<\/p>\n 1:14 p.m. – The prosecution passed the witness to the defense, specifically to Goss.<\/p>\n 1:33 p.m. – Goss asked the witness if Perez was capable of \u201cacts or violence\u201d during schizophrenic episodes. <\/p>\n \u201cTaking this as true, what we\u2019ve been talking about, she (Perez) believes random strangers kidnapped her children. She physically attacks them, assaults them. Gets assaulted in return, right?\u201d Goss asked the witness. \u201dYou would agree that, assuming this is true \u2014 it\u2019s in the report and she had injuries \u2014 that Melissa is capable of unpredictable acts of violence against others?” <\/p>\n The witness asked Goss to rephrase his question. <\/p>\n \u201cWhen Melissa is in that stage, strangers and other people are at risk of being attacked violently. You would agree with that?\u201d Goss asked the witness. <\/p>\n \u201cYes, sir,\u201d the witness said. <\/p>\n 1:47 p.m. – A private psychiatrist had been hired to help Perez. <\/p>\n Goss asked the witness about Perez and whether she took her medication as directed. <\/p>\n \u201cEven despite that, she (Perez) made the decision not to take her medication. You would agree with that?\u201d Goss asked the witness. <\/p>\n \u201cShe made that decision,\u201d the witness told the court. \u201cIn our clinical field, we call that, \u2018self-determination of the client.\u2019 You can\u2019t force them to do something.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s right,\u201d Goss said. <\/p>\n 1:52 p.m. – Rangel instituted a short break for the court. <\/p>\n 2:09 p.m. – Jurors reentered the courtroom. <\/p>\n 2:28 p.m. – Goss passed the witness to Del Prado. <\/p>\n 2:41 p.m. – Del Prado asked the witness about a family meeting in January 2023, when the witness allegedly said they weren\u2019t \u201cgoing to enable her (Perez)\u201d anymore. <\/p>\n \u201cAs a matter of fact, you said that you weren\u2019t going to enable her anymore by giving her any more money because you were frustrated with the fact that she wasn\u2019t going to the psychiatrist that you had set her up with anymore, right?\u201d Del Prado asked the witness. <\/p>\n \u201cSir. I never said \u2018frustrated\u2019 in those comments,\u201d the witness told Del Prado. <\/p>\n \u201cOK. Did you say, \u2018I\u2019m not giving her any more money to enable her?\u2019\u201d Del Prado asked. <\/p>\n \u201cI decided not to enable her,\u201d the witness told the court. \u201cBecause 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.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s one of the most difficult decisions that people make,\u201d the witness continued. \u201cWhen family members are experiencing mental health illnesses, it\u2019s 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\u2019s not uncommon for someone to say, \u2018OK. Up to this point, we\u2019re no longer going to enable. We\u2019re going to empower.\u2019 And that\u2019s what I did, sir.\u201d <\/p>\n 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)<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n \u201cThat individual (using meth) is her brother, or was her brother,\u201d the witness told jurors, in part. \u201cI knew a history of him.\u201d <\/p>\n 2:50 p.m. – Del Prado passed the witness to Nisbet, who did not have any additional questions for them. <\/p>\n 2:53 p.m. – Rangel excused the witness from the stand. <\/p>\n 2:54 p.m. – Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris called SAPD detective Ronald Soto to the stand. Rangel swore him in. <\/p>\n The prosecution called SAPD detective Ronald Soto to the stand on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (KSAT)<\/p>\n 2:56 p.m. – Soto identified himself as the lead investigator in the June 23, 2023, shooting of Perez. <\/p>\n 2:57 p.m. – It was also Soto\u2019s first-ever SAPD shooting investigation as a lead investigator. <\/p>\n \u201cI was called by my sergeant,\u201d Soto told the court, in part. \u201cHe didn\u2019t 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\u2019t go into great detail on that at all.\u201d <\/p>\n 2:58 p.m. – Soto said he arrived at the scene \u201cmaybe an hour after it (the shooting) happened,\u201d which would have been sometime after 3 a.m. on June 23, 2023. <\/p>\n 3:10 p.m. – Rangel instituted a short break. <\/p>\n 3:26 p.m. – A hearing was held without the presence of jurors. <\/p>\n 3:30 p.m. – The hearing ended. Jurors reentered the courtroom. <\/p>\n 3:32 p.m. – The prosecution showed video of the scene after the shooting took place in Soto\u2019s presence. Some of the images and video were too graphic for KSAT to air. <\/p>\n 3:52 p.m. – Soto told Harris that he reported back to SAPD headquarters after leaving Perez\u2019s apartment. <\/p>\n While there, Soto was in charge of taking Alejandro\u2019s statement and watching his body-worn camera video. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n 3:55 p.m. – After Alejandro met with a CLEAT attorney, Soto played Alejandro\u2019s body-worn camera video and discussed the shooting with him. <\/p>\n 4 p.m. – Soto began reading Alejandro\u2019s statement to the court. <\/p>\n 4:05 p.m. – Soto began reading Villalobos\u2019 statement to the court. <\/p>\n 4:18 p.m. – Soto described meeting the Perez family hours after the shooting. <\/p>\n 4:23 p.m. – Harris asked Soto, who believed there was \u201cprobable cause,\u201d why he charged the three now-former officers. <\/p>\n 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\u2019s death. <\/p>\n 4:27 p.m. – After the officers were charged, Soto described the SAPD offices as \u201csomber.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cIt wasn\u2019t easy,\u201d Soto told the court. \u201cThese are officers that I\u2019ve worked with, that I\u2019ve seen out there in the streets. I remember them, going to scenes. This was tough.\u201d <\/p>\n Goss objected to Soto\u2019s statement. <\/p>\n \u201cIt was real easy for him,\u201d Goss said to the court. \u201cHe did it in 16 hours.\u201d <\/p>\n Rangel overruled Goss\u2019 objection. <\/p>\n 4:28 p.m. – Alejandro\u2019s body-worn camera video was played before the court.<\/p>\n 4:51 p.m. – Alejandro\u2019s body-worn camera video was stopped. <\/p>\n 4:52 p.m. – Villalobos\u2019 body-worn began playing before the court. <\/p>\n 5:23 p.m. – Rangel ended court proceedings for the day. The trial is expected to restart on Tuesday morning. <\/p>\n Background<\/p>\n On June 23, 2023, Melissa Perez, 46, experienced a mental health crisis<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n The case drew widespread attention and sparked debate over police response protocols.<\/p>\n Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos each face charges in connection with Perez\u2019s death.<\/p>\n All three charged will be tried together, which will make for a packed courtroom.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cIt indicates a sharing of resources, and they\u2019re all working together on this defense,\u201d Chacon said.<\/p>\n Each defendant has their own team of lawyers:<\/p>\n Alfred Flores is represented by Thom Nisbet, Christian Neumann and David Christian.<\/p>\n Eleazar Alejandro is represented by Ben Sifuentes and Mario Del Prado, a former division chief in the Bexar County District Attorney\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n Nathaniel Villalobos is represented by former Bexar County District Attorney Nico LaHood and his law partners Jay Norton, Jason Goss and Patrick Ballantyne.<\/p>\n As for the state, prosecutors include Felony Criminal Trial Division Chief David Lunan and Daryl Harris.<\/p>\n The trial is being presided over by Judge Ron Rangel of the 379th Criminal District Court.<\/p>\n Ahead of jury selection, a pretrial hearing became heated<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n Among the issues discussed was a federal judge\u2019s recent decision to dismiss a civil lawsuit against the officers<\/a> \u2014 a ruling the defense wants jurors to hear about. Prosecutors opposed that motion.<\/p>\n