The trial of three ex-SAPD officers over Melissa Perez’s fatal shooting entered a sixth day, with bodycam footage and testimonies scrutinized Friday.
SAN ANTONIO — The sixth day of the Melissa Perez trial centered on three ex-SAPD officers who killed the San Antonio woman in June 2023 was filled with courtroom drama—including, at one point, the possibility that the high-profile proceedings would end in a mistrial.
Judge Ron Rangel eventually dismissed that motion.
But it was just the latest indication of how there’s been no lack of tension this week between state prosecutors and the defense attorneys. From the start, the judge had warned both sides to stay away from asking what is lawful and unlawful when questioning witnesses who are current San Antonio police officers.
Instead, he asserted they should focus on what they witnessed in the early morning hours of June 23, 2023, when Perez and fatally shot at her southwest-side apartment complex. She had tampered with the fire alarm system earlier in the night, triggering the police response.
Alfred Flores, Eleazar Alejandro and Nathaniel Villalobos shot at Perez when authorities said she came at them with a hammer. Before 24 hours had passed, they were suspended from the force and jailed after Chief William McManus said their actions didn’t conform with protocols.
Jurors must determine if their use of deadly force was ultimately warranted. Flores and Alejandro are charged with murder, while Villalobos is charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in connection with Perez’s death; they’re being tried together.
‘It surprised the heck out of me’
So far, through six days of the trial, two officers and a detective have testified.
But it was Officer Jonathan Salinas’ testimony that pushed the defense to call for a mistrial Friday.
Salinas on Thursday said he was upset with the theory the state was formulating over the early days of the trial—that the officers who entered Perez’s apartment were committing burglary of a habitat. The defense team said that could incriminate Salinas and the other officers expected to testify over the course of the weekslong trial, which the district attorney’s office says is likely the first time a Bexar County law enforcement officer is on trial for murder.
Salinas was then given a public defender who announced the officer wanted to plead the Fifth, giving him the flexibility not to testify further.
Ultimately, the state decided to grant immunity to the officers testifying—aside from Salinas and Officer Jesus Ramos, who was questioned for four days this week.
The state began to question Officer Andrew Chernak, who also responded to the scene in 2023—and was granted immunity on Friday. He testified that he thought one of the defendants, Flores, was coming up with a plan that had not included lethal force.
“Did you ever get any details about that execution decision?” a state prosecutor asked Chernak, referring to that plan.
“I did not,” Chernak responded.
“Did you seek it out?”
“I was about to step back and check with them, and that’s when the shooting started,” Chernak said, before going on to say: “It surprised the heck out of me, to put it politely.”
The state argued Perez was mentally ill and there was no need to enter her apartment to arrest her at that time. The defendants were trying to go into her apartment through a back patio when she charged at them with a hammer, but their attorneys say the former officers were within their rights to go inside her home – without a warrant – and that the hammer was a deadly weapon.
The trial resumes Monday at 10:30 a.m.
What happened earlier this week in the trial?
Chernak was the third San Antonio police officer to give testimony this week, along with a San Antonio fire captain.
Earlier testimony on Friday centered on Salinas. The state has alleged during the trial that the officers did not have the right to enter Perez’s apartment that night. Defense attorneys said that if Salinas was upset about the state’s argument, he should have disclosed that before the trial began, and that it could be a violation of a legal obligation to disclose any evidence that could challenge the credibility of a law enforcement officer as a witness.
However, prosecutors say he never told them this in pre-trial interviews. The judge sided with the state on that, but allowed the defense to question Salinas without a jury present.
The state also asked Salinas questions about what he told them during pre-trial interviews and alleged he may have backtracked on statements regarding whether he had the right to enter her apartment. The state also pointed out that Salinas never wrote in his police statements following the shooting that it was a “hot pursuit,” referring to when officers are able to enter a suspect’s home without a warrant.
The judge said he was concerned about Salinas’ statements and the possibility of self-incrimination, which is when he called for an attorney. A public defender consulted with Salinas in private and he later pled his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and left the courtroom.
Later, the judge consulted with lawyers from both sides and urged the state to grant immunity to police officers who testify. The state agreed, but immunity is not being given to Salinas and another officer who already testified because they were on Perez’s property.
The judge warned both the state and the defense to stay away from asking the police officers who serve as witnesses about what is lawful or not. The judge said to just stick to the facts of what they witnesses that night.
Background on the case
Police say Perez tampered with the fire alarm system at her southwest-side apartment complex early in the morning of June 23, 2023, triggering a police response.
What ensued in the following minutes – culminating in the three officers shooting and killing Perez when authorities said she came at them with a hammer – is at the center of the case.
On Wednesday, Officer Rojas, who is also not charged in the case, faced intense cross-examination from the defense. The defense attempted to make the argument that Officer Rojas did not follow protocol which could have prevented the situation from happening.
Body camera footage he captured at the scene was shown to jurors, revealing a conversation between him and Perez where he calmly tried to assess the situation. He is not charged in the case.
Rojas testified he didn’t place Perez under arrest right away because he was trying to gather more information and got the sense she was mentally ill. But once another officer arrived on the scene, body camera footage shows Perez running off and barricading herself in her apartment.
Asked if he was willing to admit in court that he used “poor tactics” at the scene, Rojas responded: “Yeah, sure… like I said, I didn’t get to that point to arrest her yet. I was trying to keep calm and she ran.”
Rojas was never disciplined by SAPD after the 2023 incident. He’s just one of many officers expected to testify in the trial, which could last up to a month.
The defense team on Wednesday – the fourth day of the trial – showed new body camera video of Perez trying to harm an officer with a hammer after he tries going through her window. The defendants’ attorneys also called foul on the state’s argument over whether or not the officers had the right to her apartment at all. That led to brief verbal sparring between prosecutors and the defense team.
Earlier in the week, the prosecution said the video appeared to show the officers on scene, including the defendants, attempting to talk to Perez. Prosecutors said the footage shows the officers did not appear to know how to respond to the complicated situation as Perez appeared to be having a mental health crisis.
The video shows Perez becoming more agitated by the officer’s actions, repeatedly telling them to leave. Prosecutors argue that Perez was not a threat to the officers or herself but instead needed de-escalation.
They played video of officers trying to kick down her door, jumping onto her patio, asking her questions like whether she was in a gang or whether she was taking any medication for mental illness.
The defense argued that the officers have the right to enter her property, claiming she was potentially evading arrest and she was dangerous since she had a hammer in her hand.
The defense also argued that the three officers were not the ones who escalated the situation and that Perez came toward them with the hammer while she was inside the apartment, which then caused them to feel at risk for their lives.