BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – After the prosecution rested last week, the joint defense team’s first witness, former SAPD detective Mark Duke, returned to the stand on Monday afternoon.
Following Duke, a second former member of law enforcement took the stand.
Lisa Miller, a former San Antonio police detective and sergeant, began testifying in the trial of three ex-officers charged in Melissa Perez’s 2023 death.
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.
12:05 p.m. – Ron Rangel, the presiding judge in this case, asked the prosecution and the joint defense team to meet him within the judge’s chambers.
12:18 p.m. – The prosecutors and the defense team emerged from Rangel’s chambers.
12:20 p.m. – Rangel entered the courtroom.
12:24 p.m. – Jurors entered the courtroom.
Ben Sifuentes, a co-defense attorney for ex-SAPD officer Eleazar Alejandro, continued his cross-examination of retired SAPD detective Mark Duke.
12:25 p.m. – Sifuentes asked Duke, if he had been in the ex-officers’ shoes, would he have “reasonably believed” that Melissa Perez used a hammer as a deadly weapon.
Bexar County co-prosecutor David Lunan objected to Sifuentes’ question.
Rangel allowed for the defense to rephrase the question.
12:26 p.m. – In his rephrased question, Sifuentes asked Duke if Perez was using the hammer as a deadly weapon at the moment when Alejandro opened fire.
“Yes,” Duke said.
“And when she charged a second time at both (ex-SAPD Sgt.) Alfred Flores and (ex-SAPD officer) Nathaniel Villalobos at 2:11 (a.m. on June 23, 2023) through 2:15 (a.m. on June 23, 2023), was she using the hammer as a deadly weapon?” Sifuentes asked Duke.
“Yes,” Duke said.
12:27 p.m. – As Sifuentes was in the middle of asking Duke another question about the firing of a pistol, Lunan objected to the question.
“I haven’t finished my question,” Sifuentes said to Lunan. “I haven’t finished my question.”
“Hold on a second. Hold on a second,” Rangel said. “Let me hear the question, and then I’ll let the state object.”
Sifuentes then asked Duke his question.
“At the time that each defendant fired, at the time of firing their pistol, was that immediately necessary to stop Melissa Perez’s use of deadly force?” Sifuentes asked Duke.
“Is there an objection to that?” Rangel asked Lunan.
“Not if he’s not using the word ‘reasonably,’ Your Honor,” Lunan responded.
“OK. You can answer,” Rangel said to Duke.
“Yes,” Duke said to Sifuentes.
12:28 p.m. – Based on Duke’s review, he told the court that the former officers could not have left Perez’s apartment “without taking her into custody.”
Sifuentes passed the witness. Christian Neumann, a co-defense attorney for Flores, began cross-examining Duke.
12:32 p.m. – Neumann asked Duke about filing a case “at large” as a police officer. Duke described to jurors what an “at large” case is.
“You’re (the detective) not making a decision whether the person needs to be arrested or not,” Duke said, in part. “You’re giving the district attorney the option of deciding what needs to be done, whether they want to take it before a grand jury or if they want to dismiss it. At that point, the ball is in their court.”
12:33 p.m. – In his experience as a detective, Duke told the court that he has filed “at large” homicide cases with the Bexar County District Attorney’s office “many times.”
“Have you ever had the DA’s office reach out to you after filing the case ‘at large’ asking you to do some follow up investigation?” Neumann asked Duke.
“Yes. Many times,” Duke said.
12:46 p.m. – Neumann passed the witness. The joint defense nor the state had any additional questions for Duke.
Rangel excused Duke from the stand.
12:47 p.m. – The defense called retired SAPD detective and Sergeant Lisa Miller to the stand.
Rangel swore Miller in. Nico LaHood, a co-defense attorney for Villalobos, began asking Miller questions.
12:58 p.m. – Miller told jurors that she spent “hundreds” of hours reviewing the SAPD shooting of Perez.
While Miller revealed that she had not kept track of every hour she has spent on this case and was not charging her normal rate, she said the “statewide police union” is paying Miller’s salary.
12:59 p.m. – Miller shared her opinion on how she believed the investigation was handled.
“Looking at the totality of the circumstances of this case, and the paperwork that was generated by (SAPD) detective (Ronald) Soto, I believe this investigation was corrupted by the insertion of a bias,” Miller said. “Making a decision too early in the investigation without examining all of the evidence before a conclusion was reached.”
1 p.m. – Miller also described “three major pitfalls” that an investigator needs to be aware of while working an investigation.
“The first of those is your emotions, especially in homicide investigations,” Miller said. “It’s disturbing to go to a crime scene. It can upset you to go to a crime scene. Some of them are gruesome. Some of them are heartbreaking. You have to leave your emotion at the door when you get back to the office to start working on your investigation.”
Miller said the second pitfall required a lot of self-reflection.
“You have to avoid any personal or professional biases that you may have,” Miller said. “They can be things that you’re not even aware of.”
1:01 p.m. – According to Miller, the third pitfall is what she said Sherlock Holmes described as the “bane” of investigations.
“Instead of forming a theory or hypothesis about what possibly happened and working until you’re left with what probably happened, you jump to a conclusion before you have gathered and analyzed all of your evidence,” Miller said. “That is probably the worst mistake an investigator can make, and I believe it’s the one that (SAPD) detective (Ronald) Soto made in this case.”
1:04 p.m. – In her analysis of the investigation, Miller said she would have contacted “the 911 caller who called the police that night.”
1:05 p.m. – “She (the 911 caller) was an eyewitness to some behaviors that were happening, and I was a little disappointed to see that she was never contacted in the investigation,” Miller told the court.
Miller also noted, according to the SAPD body-worn camera video, that there were at least seven officers “who, at one time or another, drew their weapons and pointed them at Ms. Perez.”
Outside of the three ex-SAPD officers on trial, no other officers fired their weapons.
“The other four (SAPD officers) did not (fire their weapons), and I was very curious as to why they did not,” Miller said, in part. “Detective Soto did not bring those other officers (in). I don’t even know if he realizes how many officers drew their weapons during the course of that whole scene.”
Miller told the court that she reached out and talked to three of those four officers.
1:06 p.m. – Miller said she spoke to SAPD officer Maria Salinas, one of the four officers who did not fire their weapon on June 23, 2023.
Salinas told Miller that she drew her weapon twice: when Villalobos was alone on Perez’s apartment patio and when the shooting took place.
“She said, ‘I would have fired, but there were officers in front of me, and I knew it was not safe for me to do so,’” Maria Salinas told Miller, who relayed their conversation to the court.
1:07 p.m. – The second of four SAPD officers Miller spoke to was Travis Thompson.
“He (Thompson) said he did draw his gun, and the reason he did not fire is because he lost sight of Ms. Perez as she moved to the back of the apartment,” Miller said.
The third officer who did not fire their weapon that Miller spoke to was SAPD officer Robert Ramos.
“Officer Ramos said he drew his weapon when (SAPD) officer (Jonathan) Salinas was on the patio and (he was) struck with the candle,” Miller recalled. “But he said he honestly does not know why he did not shoot.”
1:23 p.m. – Miller said SAPD Capt. Russ Van Geffen discussed the Perez murder case with Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris hours after the shooting on June 23, 2023.
“The report (by Van Geffen) said they discussed the case, and the decision was made to arrest (the ex-SAPD officers),” Miller told the court.
1:24 p.m. – LaHood asked Miller if Harris was involved in the officers’ arrests.
“I can’t reach that conclusion, but it conflicts with (SAPD) detective Soto saying he made the decision to arrest,” Miller said, in part. “I still don’t know who made the final decision to arrest these officers.”
1:25 p.m. – LaHood asked Miller about her thoughts about what the Bexar County District Attorney’s office’s role should be in crime investigations.
“I think there has to be a division between those two agencies (SAPD and the DA’s office), so that the DA’s office is able to maintain its neutrality and not be influenced by what the detectives think or what the police are doing,” Miller told the court.
1:26 p.m. – Miller concluded that neither the DA’s office nor detectives could have reviewed all the evidence before Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos were taken into custody.
“No because the ballistic evidence had not even gone to the crime lab yet. The autopsy had not even been performed with the results back from that,” Miller said. “There was so much evidence that was available to be analyzed, and nobody analyzed it.”
1:29 p.m. – LaHood passed the witness. Rangel instituted a short break.
2:03 p.m. – Jurors reentered the courtroom.
Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris began cross-examining Miller.
2:07 p.m. – Miller described additional details from the original 911 call to Perez’s apartment complex.
“At the very end of the call, the 911 clerk says, ‘Well, call back if anything changes. If she becomes violent,’” Miller recalled. “And the witness says, ‘Yes, she has a tool in her hand, and she’s being violent.’ So, I think that was something that needed to be explored. ‘What was Ms. Perez’s countenance at the time that the 911 caller called?’ Maybe not important to your case here today, but definitely important to me as an investigator.”
2:10 p.m. – Harris referred to a portion of SAPD officer Maria Salinas’ body-worn camera video that appeared to show Villalobos draw his gun before switching to a “less lethal” option with his Taser.
Miller said she didn’t recall Villalobos pulling out his Taser.
2:12 p.m. – Harris began showing Maria Salinas’ body-worn camera video to the court.
2:15 p.m. – After the video showed Villalobos go from his gun to his Taser, Miller agreed with Harris’ assertion.
2:38 p.m. – Harris approached Miller and asked her to read a portion of the Texas penal code with the “same section” that referred to self-defense justification and justification to use deadly force.
2:39 p.m. – LaHood objected to Harris’ reference.
“I let him (Harris) finish his question. What’s the relevance? You’ve (Rangel) already ruled on this, with all due respect, ridiculous theory,” LaHood told the court. “It appears they’re (the state) saying Melissa Perez had the right to use force, deadly force, against these officers, which is crazy. If that’s where they’re going, then we should have a hearing outside the jury’s presence.”
“Your Honor, I’ve asked my question. I’m prepared to continue,” Harris said.
“Then, a question without a purpose is irrelevant,” LaHood responded.
“Are you going to stay on the same topic?” Rangel asked Harris.
2:40 p.m. – Harris responded to Rangel.
“Your Honor, as the witness said that she was familiar with Chapter 9 (of the Texas penal code), the defense and justifications, and that’s all I wanted to do — was bring out and tie together with a prior question I had asked,” Harris said.
Rangel called for a hearing without the presence of jurors. The jury exited the courtroom.
The hearing began. Rangel asked the state if it committed a “violation” in court by talking about self-defense.
2:42 p.m. – Lunan answered Rangel on behalf of the prosecution. He argued that there is a “lawful way” of exhibiting force, even for Perez.
“See, this is exactly what I told you they were going go into, Judge,” LaHood said. “And we know, under 9-3-1 (of the Texas penal code), you can’t even resist arrest. And this is resisting arrest by force, which is, actually, a felony. They’re (the state) trying to justify that, which is absurd.”
2:43 p.m. – LaHood said he wanted to be “careful” with his words toward the prosecution’s argument.
“They intentionally continue to violate this court’s ruling, so either they will respect this court or there’s ignorance or intentionality,” LaHood told the court. “I don’t know what it is, Judge, but it’s inappropriate.”
2:45 p.m. – Because of what the defense perceives as a court violation by the state, Sifuentes asked Rangel for a mistrial with prejudice.
2:46 p.m. – Rangel agreed to sustain the defense’s objection, denied the defense’s motion for a mistrial and will instruct the jury to disregard Harris’ most recent question.
2:47 p.m. – The judge also implored the prosecution to “follow the law.”
“This is a very, clear legal issue,” Rangel told the court. “This is not a confusing, complicating issue. It’s very clear. … Let’s not do that anymore.”
2:48 p.m. – Mario Del Prado, a co-defense attorney for Alejandro, asked the court for a “stronger” rebuke.
“If the court’s not going to direct a verdict, if the court’s not going to grant a mistrial, I, respectfully, ask the court to consider an instruction, which has been done before in prior cases, about the misconduct of the state,” Del Prado told the court.
2:49 p.m. – Rangel’s instruction to the state to “follow the law” remained intact.
The judge instituted a short break.
3:04 p.m. – Jurors reentered the courtroom. Rangel directed jurors to disregard Harris’ most recent question.
3:16 p.m. – Harris passed the witness back to the joint defense team. Sifuentes began cross-examining Miller.
3:22 p.m. – Aside from detective Soto, Miller said that the statements taken by SAPD homicide’s unit just after the shooting were “poorly done.”
“They didn’t ask the pertinent questions of the officers to get to the justifications in Chapter 9 (of the Texas penal code),” Miller said. “It’s like they didn’t even try to apply Chapter 9 to this situation.”
3:23 p.m. – Miller disagreed with the notion that the detectives collaborated together in any supplemental reports about this case.
“No, and I saw just the opposite from (SAPD) detective (Deanna) Platt,” Miller told the court. “(Platt said) ‘If it’s somebody else’s case, I just let them tell their story, but if it’s my case, I go into more detail with my witnesses.’ I’m, like, what are you guys doing over there?”
3:27 p.m.– Miller alleged that there was “probably some pressure from the (SAPD) administration” from detective Soto to file arrest warrants hours after Perez was shot and killed.
3:31 p.m. – Sifuentes passed the witness. LaHood began cross-examining Miller.
3:35 p.m. – Miller was asked if she knew SAPD Sgt. Edward Pedraza, who worked at the SAPD Academy at the time of the Perez shooting.
The retired detective told the court about an alleged meeting Pedraza attended in the morning hours after Perez was shot.
“(Pedraza told me) That he was called to a meeting at the (SAPD) Chief (William McManus)’s office between 8:30 and nine, the morning of (June) the 23rd (2023),” Miller said. “And that the administration had already made the decision to arrest the officers (Alejandro, Flores and Villalobos). That was, like, two hours after they finished getting statements from the officers. The decision had already been made to arrest them.”
3:36 p.m. – During that meeting, according to Miller, Pedraza disagreed with the administration’s alleged decision.
“He (Pedraza) was told to keep his mouth shut, if he wanted to keep his position at the (SAPD) academy,” Miller told the court.
3:41 p.m. – LaHood passed the witness back to the state, specifically Bexar County co-prosecutor Daryl Harris.
3:53 p.m. – During Harris’ question to Miller about whether or not officers could have called the SWAT Team to the scene, Sifuentes asked the court for a hearing without the presence of jurors.
Rangel granted the request. Jurors exited the courtroom.
3:55 p.m. – Del Prado referred to grand jury testimony by an SAPD lieutenant on Dec. 13, 2023, who said SWAT would not have responded to Perez’s apartment.
“Now, for Mr. Harris to be asking this question in front of this jury, I don’t know how much more a question can be asked in bad faith,” Del Prado said.
3:57 p.m. – Harris argued that his question was relevant because the query was about an “aggravated assault” case, not a property crime case.
4:01 p.m. – Rangel said he would sustain the defense’s objections and would ask jurors to disregard Harris’ most recent question.
The judge also instituted a short break for the rest of the court.
4:16 p.m. – Jurors reentered the courtroom. Rangel asked the jury to disregard Harris’ most recent question.
4:32 p.m. – Harris passed the witness back to the joint defense team, specifically Sifuentes.
4:35 p.m. – Sifuentes passed the witness to LaHood.
4:43 p.m.– Miller believed SAPD officer Robert Ramos “acted like a fool” in his attempt to call Perez out of her apartment.
4:46 p.m. – LaHood passed the witness. The joint defense team and prosecution had no further questions for Miller.
Rangel excused Miller from the stand.
5:01 p.m. – Rangel ended court proceedings for the day. The trial is expected to resume on Tuesday afternoon.
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:
