Expert witness confirms Pablo Rodriguez sustained serious bodily injury from blunt force trauma

The court proceedings on May 7, 2025, in the 187th District Court, presided over by Judge Stephanie Boyd, focused on the case of the State vs. Mariano Rendon. A significant portion of the hearing involved expert testimony regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, Pablo Rodriguez.

The session began with a medical expert confirming familiarity with the legal definition of serious bodily injury, which includes injuries that pose a substantial risk of death or result in serious permanent disfigurement or loss of function of any bodily member or organ. The expert opined that Rodriguez's injuries constituted serious bodily injury, based on the evidence presented.

The discussion then shifted to specific injuries, particularly those related to blunt force trauma. The expert was shown State's Exhibit Number 2, which depicted the injuries, and confirmed that the injuries could be consistent with blunt force trauma leading to serious bodily injury.

Defense attorney Larry Blugas questioned the expert about alternative causes for the ruptured large intestines. The expert acknowledged that various factors, including penetrating trauma and surgical complications, could lead to such injuries. The defense sought to explore the possibility that prior surgeries, such as an appendectomy, could have contributed to the current condition, but the expert ruled out significant connections.

Further inquiries addressed other potential causes of intestinal rupture, including inflammation from infections and the effects of long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The expert clarified that while NSAIDs could lead to peptic ulcers, which might cause ruptures, they were not relevant in this case.

The expert also discussed bowel obstructions, noting that while they could arise from scar tissue, they typically do not lead to ruptures. The defense continued to probe the medical history of Rodriguez, including previous hernia surgery, to establish any links to the current injuries.

As the session progressed, the expert maintained that the injuries were likely caused by blunt force trauma, despite the defense's attempts to introduce alternative explanations. The court proceedings highlighted the complexities of medical evidence in legal contexts, particularly in determining the causation of serious bodily injuries.

The hearing concluded with the expert's reaffirmation of the initial assessment, setting the stage for further deliberations in the case. The next steps in the trial will involve continued examination of evidence and witness testimonies as the court seeks to establish the facts surrounding the incident.