Judge denies directed‑verdict request on two counts; defense begins presenting witnesses in Alexander Rodriguez trial

The 187th District Court continued the jury trial in State of Texas v. Alexander Rodriguez, during which Judge Stephanie Boyd denied the defense's motion for a directed verdict on counts alleging inappropriate touching and allowed the defense to begin calling its witnesses.

Defense counsel moved for a directed verdict on count 1 (subsection dispute) and counts 2 and 3, arguing the state lacked corroborating physical evidence, DNA, photographs or cell‑phone data. The prosecutor responded that the complainant and other witnesses had testified to elements of the offenses. Judge Boyd denied the directed‑verdict motion as to counts 2 and 3 and said she would review the record for specific testimony on the penetration element in count 1 before ruling.

After the court's rulings, the defense called multiple witnesses. Maryam (Maryam Lisa) Every (introduced on the record) testified that she was Alex Rodriguez's ex‑fiancé, described household composition when Emily visited and said she had not observed signs of sexual abuse in the younger child's behavior or body; she testified that Child Protective Services (CPS) interviewed the household and that the family cooperated. Defense counsel elicited testimony about sleep arrangements, school and recreational activities and that, in the witness's view, Emily did not show overt signs of physical abuse while in that home.

The defense also presented Clarissa Herrera, identified in court as Emily Rodriguez's mother. Herrera acknowledged a prior intimate relationship with Alex Rodriguez and described extensive communication and contact over several years, including disputes over child support and occasional messages after the 2022 outcry. On cross‑examination Herrera disputed responsibility for signing a submitted administrative form (the transcript reflects a dispute about a signature reading “Clarissa Rivera”) and acknowledged CPS involvement in prior family investigations; she testified she believes the abuse occurred and said she cooperated with the CPS and forensic interview process. Herrera gave Emily's date of birth on the record as Nov. 2007 and said Emily was about 17 at the time of testimony.

Christina (Christina Ontiveros) — identified on the record as Rodriguez's mother — testified she had hosted Alex, that Emily visited and sometimes slept at the home, and that she did not observe inappropriate touching or notice wounds, seminal fluid or other physical signs. She described normal family activities (movies, amusement parks, swim meets) and said she had not heard suspicious noises at night while living in a single‑story home with thin walls.

Defense counsel introduced demonstrative material and testimony about a physical modification described as “pearling” to visualize the defendant's anatomy; the court permitted the demonstrative to be shown to the jury for illustration. The defense also moved and introduced certified documents including a petition in a suit affecting the parent‑child relationship; the court admitted at least one defense exhibit (listed on the record as defense exhibit 32).

Throughout testimony, the defense emphasized gaps the counsel described as a lack of physical corroboration and inconsistent statements by witnesses, while the prosecutor argued the jury could draw reasonable inferences from testimony and forensic interviews. Judge Boyd repeatedly instructed about rules on testimony and indicated she would conduct a brief hearing outside the jury's presence on an outcry/witness‑related matter before bringing the jury back.

The court recessed the jury at the close of the day's testimony; the judge instructed jurors to return the next day at 1:30 p.m. The defense said it expected to call additional witnesses on the following day.