The June 6, 2025, session of the 187th District Court, presided over by Judge Stephanie Boyd, focused on the case of State vs. Rodriguez, where critical discussions centered on the investigation conducted by Child Protective Services (CPS) regarding allegations involving the defendant.

The proceedings began with inquiries into the CPS investigation, specifically addressing whether the investigator, Mary Anne Dean, had been consulted. The witness confirmed familiarity with Dean's name, indicating that they had read the report but had not requested the CPS records or conducted a thorough review of the findings. This raised questions about the depth of the investigation, particularly regarding the timelines and the handling of evidence.

Key points of contention included the witness's failure to request extensive CPS history on individuals involved in the case, including Clarissa and Roy Herrera. The witness acknowledged that while they concluded their investigation in January 2023, they did not submit the case to the Bexar County District Attorney's office until an unspecified time later, suggesting a lack of urgency in handling this case compared to others with more immediate physical evidence.

The discussion further revealed that the witness had not reviewed critical materials, such as body camera footage or the video recording of Clarissa's interview, prior to testifying. This omission was highlighted as a significant oversight, as it could have provided essential context and clarity regarding inconsistencies in testimonies.

The witness also admitted to not speaking with key individuals, including school counselors, therapists, or family members, which could have contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of the case. The absence of physical evidence, such as DNA or eyewitness accounts, was noted, leading to questions about the thoroughness of the investigation.

As the session progressed, the witness's investigative methods were scrutinized, particularly their decision not to gather physical evidence or conduct interviews that could have corroborated the victim's testimony. The witness maintained that they did what they could, but this assertion was met with skepticism regarding the adequacy of their efforts.

The court session concluded with a focus on the implications of the investigation's shortcomings, emphasizing the importance of thoroughness in cases involving allegations of abuse. The discussions underscored the need for a meticulous approach to ensure justice is served, particularly in sensitive cases involving minors. The next steps in the trial remain to be determined as the court continues to evaluate the evidence presented.