SAN ANGELO, TX -- Convicted capital murderer Isidro Delacruz’s blood alcohol level was .27 which is three times over the legal limit according to an expert witness on the stand in the punishment phase of his trial.
Wilkie Wilson, Ph. D. is a neuropharmacologist and a professor at Duke University in North Carolina. He was called to the witness stand by defense attorneys Will Boyles and Rob Cowie in one of the final days of the punishment phase of Delacruz’s capital murder trial. A jury found him guilty of capital murder and is now hearing testimony on his sentence.
Wilson testified that Delacruz had a blood alcohol level of .15 at 7 a.m. Sept. 2, 2014 when his blood was drawn at San Angelo Community Medical Center. Wilson told jurors that was twice the legal limit five hours after authorities know he had his last drink. By just after 2:30 a.m. that morning, Delacruz was on video in the back seat of a patrol car in front of the house on Houston St.
Wilson said Delacruz weighed about 140 pounds at the time of the murder and calculating from the 7 a.m. known blood alcohol level, he estimated that Delacruz would have had a blood alcohol level of .27 or three times the legal limit when he killed Naiya Villegas. Earlier testimony showed Delacruz on video at Parrot’s Head Tavern at 1:45 a.m. where he had his last drink.
Wilson testified that he interviewed Delacruz in the Tom Green County Jail and that Delacruz was an alcoholic. Delacruz told Wilson that he drank 21 beers that night and Wilson told jurors that was consistent with his blood alcohol level.
There were four witnesses on the stand Friday. The first was Wilson followed by Delacruz’s cousin Renata Hernandez. Hernandez testified that there was a lot of drama at the Delacruz home and Isidro’s mother treated him and his brothers differently. According to Hernandez, Elizabeth Delacruz treated her youngest son better than Isidro or his older brother Chris. Hernandez cried when defense attorneys reminded her that the jury found Delacruz guilty of capital murder and would sentence him to either life in prison without parole or the death penalty.
Delacruz’s mother Elizabeth ‘Lisa’ Delacruz was next on the witness stand. Lisa Delacruz testified that her son Isidro was a good person and was a happy child. She told jurors Isidro had a speech impediment when he first started school and had to go to the West Texas Rehabilitation Center for treatment. She said the speech impediment went away as he grew older.
When questioned about Child Protective Services removing her three children for six months when Isidro was 19 months old, Lisa Delacruz said, “I did not abuse my son!” The children were returned to the Delacruz home after Lisa and Juan Delacruz completed parenting classes and Juan’s mother moved in with them as required by CPS.
Lisa Delacruz continued testifying about Isidro’s learning disability. She said she referred him for special education testing because he struggled in school. Earlier testimony showed Isidro tested low in writing and was allowed special accommodations in the regular classroom. He passed all the tests required to graduate from Lake View High School in 2010.
Lisa Delacruz seemed to be confused about Isidro’s age when he graduated. She testified that he was born in 1990 and that he graduated in 2010. Under cross examination from 51st District Attorney Allison Palmer, Lisa Delacruz testified that Isidro graduated when he was 18 years old. Palmer asked her a second time how old he was and Lisa firmly answered that he was 18. Palmer said that if he was born in 1990 and graduated in 2010, he was 20-years-old when he graduated.
In another exchange between Palmer and Lisa Delacruz, Palmer asked if Lisa remembered that in August of 2014 at a bond hearing to get Isidro released from jail Lisa testified that she would do everything she could do to keep Isidro away from Tanya Bermea. Lisa said Friday she didn’t remember saying that. Palmer brought up the court testimony on a laptop computer and showed it to Lisa Delacruz, who still said she didn’t remember saying that but admitted that was what the legal document stated.
Lisa had testified that she didn’t know where Isidro was that Monday night when he was out drinking and broke into Tanya Bermea's house and cut the throat of her daughter, Niaya Villegas, killing her.
Defense attorneys showed Lisa Delacruz photographs of Isidro Delacruz and his brothers Lorenzo and Chris when they were very young. One photograph showed them in front of a Christmas tree. Defense attorney Rob Cowie asked Lisa Delacruz about that. She said she baptized as a Jehovah’s Witness in 2001 and that was the last Christmas tree the boys had because she didn’t believe in celebrating Christmas as a Jehovah’s Witness.
The night of the murder, Lisa Delacruz can be heard at the scene on in-car video yelling, “Isidro what did you do?” She told jurors Friday that she loved her son and she just wanted to know he was okay. She testified that she went to the scene to make sure that police wouldn’t shoot and kill her son.
The final witness called by defense attorneys on Friday was Isidro Delacruz’s cousin Hope Cline. Cline testified that when she was a teenager her family lived down the street from the Delacruz home and that they ate many meals there. Cline told jurors she witnessed verbal arguments at the Delacruz home but not any physical abuse.
Cline cried when Cowie told her that the jury had found Isidro Delacruz guilty of capital murder. Delacruz cried as well.
Testimony ended at about 12:40 p.m. and will resume Monday at 9:15 a.m. Defense attorneys are expected to call two final witnesses and then rest their case on Monday. Attorneys Friday afternoon worked on the jury’s instructions with District Judge Ben Woodward.
Comments
I really hope the jury isn't swayed by all the "woest me" stories from his family and friends!! He needs to die even though it will take a while before that is accomplished! He has been eating well while on taxpayer money, he's a lardo compared to how he looked when he first got arrested! He needs to be killed just like the goats his father used to kill!! He deserves NO MERCY!!!
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkTodays defense attorneys have one sure thing going for them, moreso now than ever -- the neutered American public who are suckers for "but he had it rough as a kid" BS.
It's infuriating that a little girl can be murdered in cold blood, and later we're all footing the bill to hear when Isidro's last Christmas was. Adding insult to injury, is this POS's family of riff raff doing little to own the horrific crime he's committed.
Maybe the U.S. isn't right for Isidro and his family. They seem like they'd be more content back home where life is cheap and everyone looks the other way while their young men perfect their craft in career criminality.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkDelacruz's attorney's "going there" is not a reflection of the American public... Not a reflection of Texans and definitely not a reflection of the residents of our city.
If you're angry that your tax money went into these proceedings, maybe you would rather get a job that pays cash under the table or perhaps go play Batman of San Angelo!
Our system is doing it's job and I doubt those jurors will forget the images they were subjected to view of the crime scene when they deliberate on his sentencing! They have already convicted him to die in jail regardless of the form, be it life w/o parole or the death sentence!
You seem to have this master plan complete with all the answers and everyone else would be better following your crazed ideologies rather than letting the system do it's job.
What do you really want to see happen based on the system we have in place? We're not going to flay and quarter him as one of your previous posts implied, we're not sending his family "back home"... and we are not neutered! Go to an anger management program and have a good night before your issue's lead you to become the next criminal we read about.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkI note that sometimes the mug shot is posted, and sometimes the walk to and from the courthouse is posted. I think it is worth noting that the mugshot reflects the way the accused wanted to live and present himself. The picture walking to and from is the way the lawyers want the accused to be seen. Very large difference in the appearance of the person.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkI think they should not be allowed to change appearances. This is false presentation and they should be presented as the person they are! Trials should be presented the evidence as is. These criminals get too many breaks and sympathy for these hiddeous crimes they commit. The lawyers also play on the jury getting sympathy for the families of these maniacs and forget about the victim. Of course, normal good people feel sorry for those in pain and grief. That is the defense's strategy and jurors should beware. I understand fair trials, but truth is truth!
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkI would love to be a juror Jose! The mugshot picture illustrates a lot about how the man wanted to be perceived in public. In the mug shot, his appearance was that of a disheveled person, and courtroom appearance was that of a put together person. The difference in the two pictures shows a striking difference in the the way the man wanted to look, and the way the lawyers wanted him to look for the jurors. With some degree of certainty (since I wasn't there) I would think the prosecution showed pictures of that little girl before the crime....and after the crime. It must have had an impact on the jury...if it didn't.....THEY should not be in that box. If appearance doesn't matter...why the big change?? Why doesn't he look like he did in the mug shot?
Yes, appearance does have everything to say about the way a man or woman feels about themselves. (btw I am qualified to be a juror!)
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkThis young man is accused of a heinous crime. You are not. Does the mug shot show you someone who would not do that crime, someone who has their life together? That is what the courtroom appearance would have you believe. Two really different people in those pictures. Look, I covered a trial for a sheriff accused of shooting someone in the back. There was a competency hearing...the accused had to have two nurses lead him to the defense table...he was in such a state the nurses had to stay with him during the hearing. The hearing went on for four days...he was led in...out...in..out...much like a child. The jury found him competent to stand trial. Trail started the next day...the accused walked in under his own power...dressed nicely...even the judge was taken aback. He was found guilty. But there was a lot of drama to get there. Yes, young people may think appearance does not telegraph who you are, or who you want to be. But, sadly for those...it does indeed. When you are on trail for murder, and may get the death penalty, you better do everything you can to convince that jury you are an upstanding citizen. That is exactly why he was dressed the way the lawyers wanted. It is o.k. with me if you disagree.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkPost a comment to this article here: