[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6168859,"mediaKeyId","5406716-b31cca5f1e8f51870c9e677d3451b741","parentId",5406716,"title","Defense investigator staged vehicles to match surveillance; judge limits expert testimony but admits many defense exhibits","audioSeconds",10333,"startMs",1639000,"endMs",11972000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5406716-b31cca5f1e8f51870c9e677d3451b741&start=1639&end=11972","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5406716-b31cca5f1e8f51870c9e677d3451b741/thumbnail_1639000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6168859/Texas/Defense-investigator-staged-vehicles-to-match-surveillance-judge-limits-expert-testimony-but-admits-many-defense-exhibits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168859-8cbc33fc50108429ed4418d615695b74/orig.mp4?Expires=1770953603&Signature=HSobp1foAJ8vFHUS~cJ~4ZkUatj8dJPyLCl5BEIHw-4ANj4EMh-A62MZr6gE4sXfRgPTnz19ElVzK1lWYlkO0XB4brNhNg-obFW-1VVLtlcIIfw4NEvSNxDAjgkd4RQrzuV0ReV15NJz2qDbjjEGeHrjGBm-epI4EPj87HidxhEvSPYz7TRSnkccEZ0VsjJQdjnQkOAjKUwCTvB9ld4AXmBZoHa-DLJdYnAWz75dHsD-W347Rc~IN2vIwYqIkE17DDcFuIYBZGjSClRaOUSwPi3em9TkYJ4j9hR0tyeStUz3Z5B5Y7I-VWcdKMfgIVE~A-Udt~07zxdGk0KrDHFC4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-16T22:26:55Z","article","Christopher Otero, a private investigator called by the defense, told the 187th District Court that he reviewed discovery (church surveillance video, a police dashcam and reports), visited the church parking lot, staged substitute vehicles and took photographs and measurements intended to reproduce the perspectives captured in the footage.

Otero described the physical work he performed: he said he staged a Ford F-150 to approximate the position of the San Antonio police vehicle and used a 2009 Chevy Traverse in place of the white Nissan Rogue so he could photograph the driver’s perspective. He testified he took measurements on site using a measuring wheel, recorded video (a GoPro mounted to a vehicle hood) and captured still photographs for the defense record. He also said he attempted to extract event data from the white Nissan Rogue with a Bosch crash-data retrieval tool but could not retrieve usable EDR information because the vehicle did not recognize available keys and the battery condition prevented access. Otero testified the impounded white Nissan Rogue’s interior was \"completely covered in debris, dirt, mud, dust.\"

The court held an extended bench voir dire on whether Otero should be qualified to give expert or recreation testimony. Defense counsel described Otero’s investigative experience and said he would not offer expert opinions about shot feasibility; Otero testified, \"No. I do not intend to give any expert opinions today.\" The state objected to event‑recreation testimony and to certain proffered exhibits, arguing Otero lacked formal training in crime‑scene reconstruction and that his staged placements were approximations.

Judge Stephanie Boyd repeatedly explained the legal standard for lay versus expert testimony during the hearing, stating that the witness had represented he was not an expert in crime‑scene reconstruction and that the court would therefore treat him as a lay witness for purposes of admissibility and objection rulings. The judge permitted the jury to hear certain non‑opinion testimony and ruled on multiple exhibit offers during and after the voir dire.

Several defense exhibits were admitted into evidence during the testimony at points the transcript records as \"admitted without objection\"; the court also admitted other exhibits after argument and review. Among the exhibits explicitly admitted in the record were defense exhibit 93 and defense exhibits 94–101, 102–104, 105–107, and, later in the proceedings, exhibit 138 and exhibit 139. The court sustained objections when counsel asked Otero to offer what the court characterized as expert opinions beyond lay observation and recollection.

Otero acknowledged the limits of his work: he called his placement of vehicles \"a rough estimate\" based on multiple visual cues in the surveillance footage (tree branches, columns, curb lines) and admitted he did not use or adopt the San Antonio Police Department’s CSI measurements as the sole basis for his placements. He said he relied on what was visible in the videos and on his site measurements with the measuring wheel and that, as a lay investigator, he was presenting images and perspectives for the jury’s consideration rather than offering specialized expert opinion about feasibility of shots or definitive measurements.

The judge allowed the jury to see multiple photographs and videos the defense produced to illustrate driver and passenger perspectives, but limited Otero from testifying as an expert in crime‑scene reconstruction. The court instructed both sides that objections to foundation and relevance were preserved for the record; the jury heard the staged photographs and videos admitted into evidence and will weigh their probative value alongside other evidence.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","WED., JULY 16, 2025/JUDGE STEPHANIE BOYD/187TH DISTRICT COURT/JURY: STATE VS ASHBAUGH","oneSentenceSummary","Defense investigator Christopher Otero testified that he staged vehicles in a church parking lot to approximate positions shown in surveillance and dashcam footage, but the court ruled he is a lay witness and limited expert‑style testimony.","taxTitle","Judge Stephanie Boyd 187th District, District Court Judges, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66298,"location","Texas","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6168864,"Optometrist: court records show defendant has bilateral myopia and irregular astigmatism; correction yields 20/20",637,742000,1379000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5406716-b31cca5f1e8f51870c9e677d3451b741&start=742&end=1379","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5406716-b31cca5f1e8f51870c9e677d3451b741/thumbnail_742000.jpg","/articles/6168864/Texas/Optometrist-court-records-show-defendant-has-bilateral-myopia-and-irregular-astigmatism-correction-yields-2020","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168864-da6b7f98908cfa8c95b4a9496152e98b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770953603&Signature=Nwt2GVXAp98DyMNHPUC8mX5eNctiL8-e~dLG9jQaBSheH366~0ZccnoNimBxVZajvSJxxqSWKlZVny8P7ht8J2JLyw1wW8QfO4QSi6eIXnnW8HNnT6J4EsUhXQ-hhKZ0ptjvpyDUOf4qXZDRE8aNn-LubZ6pO8V62hL95aOsRISD2wsywpHhMMh8kRVCJ~Nrv1fC0SQgkk~mJ6tKM-H2uauJ4eY7Z1LJeToMpKET4eTP3VZClJcEx7nXCLSh-WG6bbpYd30yCobkcc0hb4EhkaNibf-6Qt3RoNjCcCa8noyOjaZqNcQunupf3l0gNhtFJ995LlzgdN2LObAnsHfuWg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Dr. Anna Marzak, an optometrist who identified herself as the author of clinic notes, told jurors in the 187th District Court that medical records she prepared for patient Tyler Aschbaugh list bilateral myopia and irregular astigmatism and show that, with corrective lenses, the patient saw 20/20.

Marzak testified the electronic note she signed is dated 07/30/2024 and is part of the records for Marzak Eye Care, a practice she said is located inside North Star Mall. She said the July 30, 2024 entry lists the patient’s name and date of birth and that the chart is part of her regular, routinely kept business records.

The optometrist described the clinical findings: \"He has myopia. He has also irregular astigmatism, bilateral,\" and explained for jurors that \"bilateral\" means both eyes and that astigmatism is an uneven curvature of the front of the eye that can cause halos and distortion, particularly under low light.

Marzak said the July 2024 exam showed uncorrected acuity recorded in the chart as \"2400\" (as written in the record) and that she prescribed refractive correction during that year’s exams. She told the court that with glasses or contacts the patient saw 20/20. She also said she had seen the patient previously in March 2024 and in February 2018 but that she did not have personal knowledge of whether the patient was wearing glasses or contacts on any particular date outside the clinical visits.

On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked whether Marzak had fitted the patient for contact lenses; she said the patient came in for a contact lens exam but did not return for follow-up and she therefore did not release a contact prescription. She also said she had limited training about the direct effects of substances on the eye and would not offer medical opinions about how alcohol or marijuana intoxication would have affected the patient’s vision on a specific night.

The testimony established what the clinic recorded about visual acuity and refractive error but did not supply direct evidence about the defendant’s vision at times outside the documented exams or about whether corrective lenses were being worn during incidents referenced elsewhere in the record.

Judge Stephanie Boyd received the records into evidence during the witness’s presentation and permitted Marzak to be questioned about the contents and the business-practice basis for the records.","During testimony in the 187th District Court, Dr. Anna Marzak, an optometrist, identified eye exam records for defendant Tyler Aschbaugh showing bilateral myopia and irregular astigmatism and said corrected vision tested 20/20; she testified she could not say whether Aschbaugh was wearing correction on specific prior dates.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Defense investigator staged vehicles to match surveillance; judge limits expert testimony but admits many defense exhibits

Optometrist: court records show defendant has bilateral myopia and irregular astigmatism; correction yields 20/20