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

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.