Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Court‑appointed psychologist testifies to cognitive vulnerability as prosecutors urge long sentence and defense asks for probation
Loading...
Summary
In Bexar County, a court‑appointed psychologist told jurors Jesus Prado showed executive‑function weakness on screening tests and had a history of grief and head injuries; prosecutors urged denial of probation and a lengthy prison term while defense counsel urged mercy and rehabilitation.
SAN ANTONIO — A court‑appointed psychologist told jurors on Wednesday that Jesus Prado showed a measurable weakness on a decision‑making screening test and that the results, combined with recent grief and marital breakdown, could help explain his conduct on Oct. 19, 2023, as lawyers and the judge framed how jurors should weigh punishment.
Dr. Michael Thomas Jumes, a clinical psychologist with a Ph.D. who said he has worked in brain‑injury rehabilitation and state hospitals, testified he met with Prado three times in July 2024 and reviewed a body‑worn camera recording and an investigative interview. “I conducted a mental health evaluation,” Jumes said on the stand. He described Prado’s history of grieving the recent death of a brother, a separation from his wife and that Prado had been taking Zoloft, which the witness said Prado obtained online.
Jumes said he screened Prado’s cognitive functioning with brief tools and added a timed measure of executive function because of Prado’s reported head‑injury history. On that measure, Jumes testified, Prado’s performance was about “two standard deviations slower than people his age,” a result he described as a potential vulnerability in decision‑making under pressure and one that “merits further diagnostic workup” by a neurologist or neuropsychologist.
The psychologist cautioned that his screening was not a full neuropsychological battery and that he did not obtain complete medical records from Wilford Hall after efforts to request them. He told jurors the testing and much of Prado’s history relied on self‑report and the documentary evidence provided to him.
After the testimony, Judge Stephanie Boyd read the court’s charge to jurors, outlining the two counts of aggravated assault against public servants (cause numbers 2023CR11452 and 2023CR11453), the statutory punishment range (five years to life or up to 99 years, plus a possible fine), and the fact that the sentences would run concurrently. The judge also explained jurors may recommend community supervision if they assess a sentence in the lower punishment range and the defendant has no prior felony convictions.
In closing arguments, the State urged jurors to deny Prado’s application for probation and to impose a lengthy prison term. A prosecutor argued that Prado framed himself as a victim to excuse violence and emphasized the harm to the two responding officers, asking jurors to prioritize community safety.
Defense counsel Ernest Acevedo told jurors Prado had lived about 40 years without felony convictions and urged them to consider his entire life, the psychologist’s findings and the prospect of rehabilitation. “I do believe in second chances,” Acevedo said, asking jurors to consider probation or a lower term of incarceration and to weigh whether prison would provide the mental‑health treatment and supervision the defense says could help Prado.
The State’s rebuttal closing asked jurors for a substantial sentence, arguing Prado prepared for a confrontation and fired repeatedly at officers, and urged a punishment that would keep the community and law enforcement safe.
After argument, jurors were instructed to retire and determine punishment. The transcript provided ends before the jury returned a verdict on sentencing.
The proceedings continue in the 187th District Court before Judge Stephanie Boyd.
