Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Expert qualified and daughter testifies as trial continues in shooting of San Antonio officers
Loading...
Summary
In the continuing trial over an October 19 shooting of two San Antonio police officers, the court qualified defense psychologist Dr. Michael Thomas Jumes over the State’s objection; defense witness Madison Prado testified about family history, the defendant’s mental state and timeline, and prosecutors introduced text and video exhibits showing threats and gasoline at the scene.
The jury trial stemming from an October 19 incident in which two San Antonio police officers were shot continued in the 187th District Court. The defense called Dr. Michael Thomas Jumes as an expert in clinical psychology to testify about cognitive testing and possible brain-injury-related deficits. The State objected to the scope of his testimony — arguing he is not a neuropsychologist and much of his brain-injury work was decades earlier — but the judge overruled the objection and allowed the witness to be qualified for the limited purposes set on the record.
After the court invoked the rule limiting witness discussions of testimony, the defense called Madison Prado, the defendant’s daughter, who testified about her father’s character, their family history and the period leading up to October 19. Madison, 20, described a series of stressors — including a family death, the disclosure of an affair and worsening financial strain — and told jurors she believed her father was not himself on the day of the incident, describing it as a "perfect storm" and saying she thought he had a "mental break."
On cross-examination prosecutors introduced phone screenshots and video exhibits. The record includes exhibits the State said show threatening text messages and footage of a gasoline container and movements near the driveway and garage before police arrived. Madison acknowledged she had not previously seen many of those communications and said in some instances she could not see the full actions on the video frame; she confirmed she was not the person who purchased a firearm or set tactical positions. The prosecutor emphasized text messages shown to the jury that included threatening language and the State referred to prior testimony from an arson investigator who said gasoline was found in the garage.
Earlier in the hearing defense and state counsel argued over the proper scope of expert testimony. Dr. Jumes described his qualifications — a doctoral degree and postdoctoral work that included experience at a brain-injury rehabilitation center in the 1990s and later competency and sanity evaluations for court-involved patients. State counsel urged the court that, while Dr. Jumes may be qualified to discuss observed mental functioning, he was not qualified to opine on causation for a traumatic brain injury; the court nevertheless allowed the testimony within the limits the judge set.
The testimony also covered character evidence: defense counsel introduced a photograph (defense exhibit 4) of the defendant in a fire-uniform reflecting volunteer service; the court admitted the exhibit without objection. The prosecutor pressed that threats, gasoline in the garage and the defendant's tactical positioning on October 19 were actions for which the defendant alone was responsible.
Cross-examination focused on the chronology of messages and events in the 24 hours surrounding the shooting and on the weight jurors should assign to post-incident statements and character testimony. The court conducted routine evidentiary rulings and asked parties to approach for additional matters before a short recess and return to continue the trial.
