Oh, and you can sit anywhere you want to. There go. There's no assigned seatings.
All right, everyone, please be seated. All right, ladies and gentlemen, before I swear you in, I just want to tell you a few things. Number one, I know that sometimes people will see courtrooms run different ways, but in this courtroom, I don't need the the attorneys to approach the court or ask for permission to approach the witness.
I allow them to move about the courtroom as they need to move about the courtroom. So, if you see them approaching with a witness and don't ask the court for permission, it's not a sign of disrespect. I given them permission to do that.
Normally you may people see people who when they make objections they'll stand. In this courtroom I ask them not to stand. The reason why is because it makes it easier for the court reporter to hear and it it takes you some time to get out of the habit to of standing when you're objecting.
So some of them may still stand but they know they don't have to and it's not a sign of disrespect. The other thing, we're starting it a little bit late today. It's through no fault of their own.
There was a little bit of technical difficulties with the equipment that needs to be used by both parties. So, it was not their fault. With that being said, uh I'm going to give you the oath for this specific trial.
So, if you could raise your hand for me, please. Do you and each of you solemnly swear that in a case of the state of Texas versus Mr Garza, you will a true verdict render according to the law and the evidence. So, help you God.
All right, you can lower your hand. State, you may proceed. True bill of indictment.
In the name and by authority of the state of Texas, the grand jury of Bear County, state of Texas, duly organized and panled and sworn as such at the March April term AD 2025 of the 227th judicial district court of said county in said court at said term do present in and to said court that in the county and state of for said and anterior to the presentment of this indictment. Count one, manslaughter. On or about October 13th, 2023, Simon Alexander Garza did then and there recklessly caused the death of an individual, namely Jose Luis Fernandez, by the defendant driving a motor vehicle at a speed that was not reasonable or prudent under the circumstances then existing, driving without keeping a proper lookout.
driving without taking necessary and proper evasive action to avoid driving the motor vehicle into a motor vehicle driven by Jose Luis Fernandez and disregarding a traffic signal against the peace and dignity of the state. Right. To that, how do you plea?
Not guilty. All right. You may be seated.
Uh state, do you have any opening statements? Yes, judge. May I proceed?
Yes, you may proceed. This is what the evidence will show. 15 minutes.
It's a warm October night. Not that many cars on the road. Single car pulls up to an inter.
There's a red light. face where the lights turn green. Bam.
Out of nowhere on the left, another car hits him. Everything takes black. That's what happened on October 13th.
The defendant, Simon Garzo, ran through an intersection and reckless actions paused to death. Okay. Luis Fernandez.
Now, you may hear some evidence about there being an open container of alcohol in Jose Luis Fernandez's car like we were talking about earlier. I ask I would be fair and impartial. I ask to listen all of the evidence and at the end decide were these actions reckless.
Did they call the death of Jose? The answer to that after you see all the video, hear all the testimony, see all the photos is going to be yes. These were reckless actions caused the death of Jose and because of that we'll have to come back the burden.
All right. Uh defense. Thank you, judge.
It's not going to tell you the whole story. I ask that you keep an open mind and wait till you've heard the end of the entire pile both sides by coming to a decision. Audrey and I have the pleasure of representing Simon Ga.
Simon is an old he's 22 years old. He was 20 at the time of this accident. Judge rejects any kind of statement about the defendant's age.
That's not in evidence. All right. With regards to that that will be overrule everyday.
Most of you, not all of you have been in a traffic accident. In fact, almost all of our jury panel have been in a traffic accident. It happens every day.
Unfortunately, people die. That does not make this a criminal act. Simon is a good kid and you will learn that he's a hardworking kid that he has very big holes in his life and at this night he had his girlfriend who was at work that he was being a boyfriend decided to use some food.
Then he was on his way home because he had to work in the morning. You will learn that Simon doesn't drink. It's against his religion.
never had a drop of alcohol or drug in the blood. However, you will learn that the other driver had an open container in the car. We talked about that.
That goes to his driving. That goes directly to who caused this accident. Those are things that I'm asking you to pay attention to.
Causation. We're also going to see from the evidence that Jose did not have a seat belt on. That also goes to ation.
We need to look at all of the factors in this case and determine what caused the unfortunate death of Jose. At the end of this case, you're going to have way too many questions. Way too many questions.
You're going to learn that this was a very poor investigation by police. In fact, why does have all your questions? And this investigation took almost two years.
Don't forget that the state has the burden in this case. And this is not I think that's what happened. You have beyond a reasonable doubt to prove every single element in that indictment that the state read.
And at the end, you're going to have way too many questions. Oh, one thing I want to talk about that the state talked about is that they want you to ignore the fact that there was an open container because of his judge. I'm going to object.
That's not what I said. That's a misstatement of the state's opening argument. All right, that'll be sustained.
He wants you to compare it to his thief analogy. This is not a thief slipping on. This is a factor that goes directly to a motor vehicle accident.
Alcohol and driving. At the end of this, there are going to be way too many questions and that equals reasonable doubt and the only verdict that you will be able to come to is not. All right.
State, you may call your first witness. State calls Jonathan Selenus. for the court.
Can you help them anything for you here? Thank you. Can you raise your right hand for me, please?
Do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth will help you, God? Yes, sir. All right.
You can lower your hand if you'll state your name for the record. My first name is Jonathan. Last name is Selenus.
I can't I can't hear him. I don't think your microphone. Uh, excuse me.
If you'll use the one that's stationary. Yes. And is the light green?
Yes. All right. If you'll speak into that, please.
My first name is Jonathan, last name Selenus. Just one moment. We will see.
Yep. All right. So, what I'm going to need you to do is use your outside voice so everyone can hear.
Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Mr Selenus, how are you presently employed? I'm currently employed to the patrol division with the San Antonio Police Department. I work the overnight shift from 1000 p.
m. to 6:00 a. m.
How long have you been employed with SAPD? I've been employed with them for approximately six years. What have been your assignments over the past six years?
My assignments? So, when I first broke out, I was at the Dog Watch shift, which was from 10:30 to 6:30. Uh, I tried our tango shift which is from 5:00 pm to 3:00 am and then I went back to dockwatch from 2200 hours to 6:00 am.
What was your assignment on October 13th, 2023? My assignment was the patrol division overnight shift which is the 6350 area which is a district area for San Antonio police department. Each section is uh divided equally for the south side of the San Antonio.
So my area was the 63 site which is divided by the 6310 6320 30 so on till 360. Uh my area is mostly uh military uh five palms area um a little bit of 410 highway. Okay.
And what duties are you tasked with on the patrol unit? Uh the patrol unit, you basically handle calls for service, which could be family violences, disturbance calls, civil calls, uh DWI calls for service, traffic accidents, robberies, cutings, uh basically whatever happens that night. You're the first responder for that night.
Okay. And were you on shift on October 13th, 2023? Yes, I was.
And you were assigned, you said, to which division? The patrol division. I'm sorry.
63 signed as 6350 Charlie. Okay. Um, are you familiar with a case under SAPD 232381?
Yes, I was. What case is that? That's going to be for a traffic collision that I handled.
Okay. Now, I want to talk to you a little bit how officers become involved in a case. You said officers may be dispatched.
Are there other ways officers may get involved in a case? Yes, it could be on site, which is basically if I were to roll up onto it, which is happening right in my presence of view. Okay.
And what kind of case was the one we just discussed? Uh, this one was kind of I would say kind of weird. Um, it first came out as Bear County because they have a certain jurisdiction in between Lackland, which is their area.
So, it became between Fair County, which was sent over to us. Um, at that moment I was, I would say approximately probably less than 10 minutes. So I arrived pretty quick on scene.
Okay. And do you recall the location you were dispatched to? I believe it was military and the intersection of five palms.
Okay. Now, is that intersection in Bear County? No, it was in our jurisdiction.
So that would be within San Antonio, correct? Correct. And San Antonio is within Bear County.
Yes. Okay. Correct.
Um, do you recall the reason for the dispatch? Uh, for a vehicle collision between two vehicles at the intersection of military and five palms. I want to discuss collisions a little bit.
Are there different classifications which collision calls may receive? Yes. Uh, differential responses.
So, there's some uh calls for service that is a minor and one that is a major. uh between the two of them. One is basically minor just exchange of insurance information and I collect investigating paperwork for both parties involved.
Uh when it becomes upgraded to our code three, which is a license silence response, it's possibly due to serious body injury or somebody's life is at stake, which responses the faster response time. Okay. Um do you recall what classification this collision was?
This one was a uh responding to as a code three for a major vehicle collision. And now when you arrived to that location at West Military Drve in 5 Palms, what did you observe? Uh as I arrived on scene, I observed one vehicle in the middle of the intersection followed by another vehicle nearby the curb area with a male inside the driver's seat.
Okay. Okay. Now, that vehicle that you stated was in the intersection, do you recall the maker model?
Uh, if you would have like documentation of my report to refresh my memory. Did you generate a report in this case? Yes, I did.
Would that report aid in your testimony? Yes, it would. A states exhibit B.
I want you to refresh a model of the intersection and then look at me when you have them. Okay. So, it's going to be a Mazda 6 2011.
That was the vehicle in the middle of the intersection. And what color was that vehicle? It's going to be green.
Okay. And then the vehicle that was by the curb, what is the make, model, and color of that vehicle? A 96 Honda Civic.
Okay. So, once you arrived on the scene and you observed those vehicles, what did you do? Uh, when I arrived on scene, I then gathered information.
Um, when I arrived, I observed emergency red and blues, which was possibly EMS or another officer that made it before me. At that moment, I was a handling officer, so I was gathering information, which is conducting the vehicle license plate, followed by what other vehicles are involved with their information as well. Um, I then started asking for the witnesses or potentially the drivers of the vehicles.
Okay. And as you approached the scene, what did you hear, if anything? So, as I approached the 96 Honda Civic, I observed a male driver seated in the driver's seat.
He was doing a shallow breath, which is basically lifethreatening situation where the body is just struggling to breathe. I'm just going to object. I don't believe this officer has the expertise to be testifying about life-threatening injuries.
That'll be overruled. Can I take him on board? Uh, your objection is overruled.
Officer Selenas, have you been or have you responded to collisions um involving life-threatening injuries? Yes, I have. and also murders, suicides.
So, I'm very familiar how the body is struggling for the last remainder of their I would so to speak their life. Um, what did you do next? At that moment, I then dispatched or I made a recommunication to our dispatcher to advisor that we had a 1060.
So 1060 is our 10 code which is basically a DOA which is dead on arrival acronym that notifies our supervisor to make scene but also our traffic investigation which is our T acronym. Officer Selenus, were you equipped with bodywn camera on October 13th, 2023? Yes, I was.
To your knowledge, was it functioning properly? Yes, it was. Okay.
I'm going to hand you what has been marked as states exhibit one. Guys, can we approach? Yes.
was a video with reductions. I was just made aware of it 30 seconds. Yeah, but I mean everybody's aware of the video and everybody was supposed to have watched all the video.
That's why we're in trial, right? So, well, it's been is the audio redacted? Your honor, I made redactions and I disclosed the redaction timestamps for the redaction.
They told defense that I redacted out here statements of people at the scene. It's my understanding defense has some further objections to statements made by the officer, but the state would assert that one of them specifically would be a present sense impression. However, I told defense I have those timestamps.
I also have timestamps of things that occur in the video if that would aid in your review of this video, but I don't I don't know how much more I can help. Well, these timestamps were just given to me, judge. This was not something that was given to me prior to trial that I could have reviewed prior to trial.
They also maintain an open file, not of their timestamps, judge. That's not in their file. Um, I have watched the video in its entirety.
Um, I do have further objections. There are background noise. There's dispatch.
There's uh reactions from other people on the scene. All of that is hearsay. There is a phone call from this officer to what I am assuming is T.
That is all hearsay and not not admissible. He can testify to his um observations, but the phone call that he makes is hearsay. It's an out of court statement.
It's not admissible. There's no exception. Um, and then I, you know, there's further I think the only parts of the video at this point and even based on my memory that should be unmuted would be possibly when this officer talks to my client and that would be it.
Everything else should be muted. All right. So again, this is what I have problems understanding.
Everybody, well, not everybody, but people are acting as though they have not seen this video. That is this witness's body cam. So, has that entire video been seen?
Yes, judge. I have seen the video. So, what are your objections to the video?
Just as I've stated, judge, I just have not seen the redactions that are done. But I believe that in order for this video to be admitted, well, here's the thing. I don't want anybody to tell me what they believe.
I just want people to tell me what their objections are. I'll make a ruling on your objections. Yes, judge.
My objection is hearsay and there are out of say as to what the out of court statements other than any statements made by made made by hearsay made by who are you alleging hearsay statements are made by there's statements made by the EMT there's statements made by this officer there's statements uh made by dispatch several statements made by dispatch to and from dispatch um there's a phone call with unknown person um I'm assuming it's a detective thank you um there is uh background noise and and maybe not words statements, but they're still statements made by people at the scene. Um reactions, emotions, um things that are not admissible. Those people are not on the stand.
There's confrontation clause at this time with those statements being admitted. All right. state.
Your honor, with response to the background noise, the state is not offering that for the truth of the matter asserted. Regarding the crying that can be heard in the background, we are not offering that for the truth of the matter asserted. Simultaneously to that crying is the agonal breathing of the complainant in this case.
Further, if the state were to admit the statement of crying as a statement, right, it is hearsay. However, it is permissible because it is a present sense impression in response under the stress of this major collision that just occurred. Regarding statements by EMT, I did redact out statements of ENT.
So, if defense can point to one that was missed, I'm more than happy to edit that out as well because I did make effort to um redact all of those out. However, if there is a statement that she can point to that is not something already redacted, I I would assert that is for medical diagnosis or treatment of these parties. Um, so it would be permissible hearsay under the rules of evidence.
All right. With regards to EMT, uh, you'll have to, um, if it's for medical and if the foundation is laid, then the court needs to hear that. But you're saying it's been redacted.
Yes, judge. I've redacted the conversation between Mr Garza and the EMT that interrupts while officer Selenus is trying to talk to Mr Garza. Additionally, I've redacted out just EMTs talking amongst themselves while they're providing their treatment because I know it is hearsay.
Okay. But if defense can show me one that I've forgotten, I'm more than happy to make that edit. All right.
And then with regards to um crying and then you said um Mr Garza is saying something through the crying. Yes judge. There's crying by uh parties inside the vehicle but there's also agonal breathing of the complainant which is that shortness of breath simultaneous.
So we are offering the agonal breathing but not the background crying but the crying also would be then existing motional emotional state of those individuals. All right. The objection to the crying in the vehicle that uh as to hearsay that's going to be overruled.
Um the EMTs the state said that they've redacted that. If you can point to some where it's not redacted let them know. Yes judge.
And I'm sorry if I may real quick. The statement that I heard is where EMT and I it may have been the officer. Honestly, I'm not sure which one says it, but they're telling witnesses to step aside.
And so that is right. You don't want that in there. She just said that if it's something that the EMTs have heard and you are able to show her where that is, they will redact that.
So there is no need for any more conversation about EMTs. The state has said that they will redact that. Now with regards to officer statement, what is that concerning?
the telephone call to T that what you're saying is you're saying um your honor that is based on the observations of officer Selena's and I would assert that it is based on his present sense impression and also his then existing mental state as well because he has a duty to channel this call in the proper routes and that requires him recounting information he's observing and learning through his investigation. Therefore, we do think it should stay in as well. Yeah.
And judge that goes for lay witnesses. That is not for an officer's investigation in discussing a case with a detective. This is not that I don't believe that that fits under that hearsay exception.
This is an investigation is he can testify to those factors, but it is not admissible to commit through the through the video. Brie, your honor, we're not asserting that officer Selenus is an expert. He is a lay witness testifying based on his training and experience.
But as per the motion in limony, we're not asserting him as an expert. All right. And then with regards to dispatch, your honor, we're not offering those comments for truth of the matter asserted.
So therefore, there is no hearsay. Well, there is hearsay, but we're not offering it. Therefore, it doesn't meet the requirements for hearsay.
All right. And then what phone call is defense um speaking about? She's speaking of the telephone call to the traffic investigation division that officer Selenus makes after he initially responds and then he calls back and provides an update to Ting the update of the status of the complaints.
But it's still the same argument I asserted. Okay. So, this is what we're going to do.
Nobody's leaving here until every single DVD that you all think is going to come in, y'all have reviewed it. All right. Thank you.
And I'm going to tell the jury that they can leave for today. We're starting tomorrow at 9:30. You all are going to not leave here, even if it's midnight, until all of that is done.
Yes, judge. Yes, all right. And I will meet you to come back tomorrow at 9:30.
Yes, sir. All right. Thank you.
You may step down.
