Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interrogation Evidence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Defendant denies killing as prosecutors introduce interview photos and video
Summary
In Bexar County court the state played excerpts of a recorded, interpreter-assisted interrogation and admitted multiple photo exhibits; the defendant repeatedly denied participating in the shooting and invoked concern for his children, while investigators said surveillance images and eyewitness reaction linked him and a co-defendant to the scene.
Judge Stephanie Boyd presided as the state presented portions of a recorded interview and photographic evidence in State v. Marco Antonio Moreno Vasquez. The court admitted state exhibits 2‑28 through 2‑34 after voir dire about whether the reproductions fairly depicted stills shown to the defendant during an interrogation.
The interrogation excerpts, presented by a sergeant who assisted the probe, show officers asking the defendant to identify persons in photographs and video screenshots taken from surveillance at the scene. According to the testimony, the defendant initially denied recognizing the person in the images and said repeatedly, "I didn't kill anyone," and that he would not "put my family at risk," statements the prosecutor and defense highlighted in cross-examination.
The sergeant who testified described showing a photograph to the defendant's wife; he said she began crying and identified tattoos in the images as those of her husband. "She knows the tattoos," the sergeant said on the stand, evidence the prosecutor used to press identification questions to the defendant.
Defense counsel questioned the officer on whether the exact hard‑copy photographs shown at the interrogation were the same prints now offered in court, arguing the witness could not independently verify the originals; after follow-up, the witness said the admitted exhibits accurately depicted what had been shown to the defendant.
The testimony also focused on the mechanics and timing of the interrogation recording and the role of interpreting staff. Defense asked whether the defendant had been asked about threats to his family or placed in any protective program; on the record the witness said there was no recorded request for witness protection and no indication the defendant reported threats during the recorded interview.
The judge later denied a defense motion for a directed verdict. The trial continued with additional investigative and witness testimony scheduled for the next day.
