Defense presents character witnesses and probation options in mitigation hearing for man who pleaded guilty to shooting two San Antonio officers
Loading...
Summary
At a Bexar County mitigation hearing, the defense called friends, family and probation experts to describe Jesse Prado’s character and outline how probation and intensive supervision programs could structure his supervision if the jury or judge declines maximum incarceration.
SAN ANTONIO — In a sentencing-phase hearing in Bexar County on Dec. 24, defense attorneys called multiple character witnesses and a probation expert as they urged the court to consider mitigation for Jesse Prado, who has pleaded guilty to shooting two San Antonio police officers in October 2023.
John “JP” Carrasco, a lifelong friend who said he and Prado met as children in Dilley, testified that Prado had been a positive, family‑oriented person and that recent losses and life changes had left him distressed. “To show his true character,” Carrasco said, he was testifying on Prado’s behalf. Carrasco described Prado’s military service and said he was surprised and “couldn't believe it” when he learned Prado had shot officers. He added that he was not offering excuses but wanted jurors to know the man he has known for decades.
The defense also called Prado’s son (identified in court records during the hearing) who testified that two days before the October incident Prado had appeared hopeful, attending church, therapy and a men’s group. The son told the jury that, based on decades of experience with his father, he did not believe Prado would be dangerous in the future.
Neighbors testified to Prado’s reputation in the Escalara subdivision, describing him as outgoing and helpful in community activities. One neighbor who said she moderated the neighborhood Facebook group called the shooting “shocking” and said she did not know about alleged domestic incidents that prosecutors have described.
Dara (Darius) Salazar, a court‑liaison officer with the Bexar County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, explained in detail what probation and intensive supervision can require: standard conditions such as no new offenses, regular reporting and drug testing; specialized options including GPS monitoring (tracking-only, partial, or full house arrest), mandatory treatment referrals, DDRF residential programs for qualifying mental‑health cases, and that judges can impose jail sanctions (commonly up to 180 days) or revoke probation if conditions are violated. Salazar emphasized probation’s rehabilitative goals: “Probation… we want to rehabilitate,” she said, noting judges control the specific conditions.
Deputy Soriano from the Bexar County detention center described the administrative‑segregation unit where Prado has been housed: small cells, 23 hours a day confined with typically one hour out, disciplinary procedures and the unit’s stressors. Soriano said that during roughly 15 months of supervision Prado had been “cordial, respectful” in custody and had not caused incidents there.
Prosecutors cross‑examined defense witnesses to highlight limits to lay knowledge about the shooting and to press that defense testimony could not rebut specific investigative findings. Prosecutors asked witnesses whether they were aware of an interview Prado gave to detectives and whether witnesses knew of texts and alleged threats prosecutors say occurred in the hours before the shooting; several witnesses said they did not.
The proceedings included testimony aimed at helping jurors evaluate character and future‑danger considerations, while the probation witness outlined concrete supervision tools judges can order if probation is imposed. The matter was recessed with the court scheduling the next session to continue the hearing the following morning.
The hearing transcript contains variant spellings for the defendant’s and some place names as spoken by different witnesses; reporting here follows the court docket and the most frequent spelling used in court materials.
