Uvalde teaching aide testifies she pleaded with officer Gonzales to intervene in massacre
A memorial dedicated to the 19 children and two adults murdered on May 24, 2022 during a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School is seen on January 06, 2026 in Uvalde, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
(CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas) — A Robb Elementary School teaching aide testified that she repeatedly urged Uvalde, Texas, school police officer Adrian Gonzales to intervene in the shooting, but said he did “nothing” in those crucial moments.
Melodye Flores testified on Wednesday that she saw gunman Salvador Ramos before he entered the school and tried to tell Gonzales his location.
“I told him that he needed to get stopped before he went into the fourth-grade building,” she testified.
“And what did he say?” prosecutor Bill Turner asked.
“He, just, nothing,” Flores said.
“Did you say it more than once?” Turner asked.
“I did,” Flores said, telling jurors she urged Gonzales to intervene two or three times.
Prosecutors allege Gonzales, who is charged with child endangerment, did not follow his training and endangered the 19 students who died and an additional 10 surviving students.
Gonzales, no longer an officer, has pleaded not guilty and his lawyers argue he is being unfairly blamed for a broader law-enforcement failure that day. It took 77 minutes before law enforcement mounted a counterassault to end the May 24, 2022, rampage.
Flores testified that she was eating lunch in her classroom when she learned about the shooter over a school radio. She said she ran outside because she knew that some students were on the playground and potentially in danger.
After warning some students, Flores said she spotted the gunman near the south door of the school.
“He was wearing all black and a hoodie … that’s when he started shooting,” she said.
Flores said she started running away and tripped, and incorrectly thought she was shot.
She testified that she saw Gonzales drive up to her right after she tripped, and she tried to inform the officer about the shooter’s location.
“I said that he was heading into the fourth-grade building, and we needed to stop him. We needed to go in and stop him before he went in,” she said.
“I just kept pointing. ‘He’s going in there, he’s going to the fourth-grade building,'” she told jurors.
“Did you hear anything from this gunman while you were talking to the police officer?” Turner asked.
“Just kept hearing shots,” she said.
Flores said that Gonzales did not respond to her warnings.
“I kept telling him that he needed to be stopped,” she said.
“When you told the officer to go in, did he go in?” Turner asked.
“No,” she said.
“What did he do?” Turner asked.
“He just stayed there,” she said.
Flores said she left Gonzales and tried to help a teacher who had sheltered in her classroom.
On Tuesday, during the testimony of Texas Ranger Ricardo Guajardo, prosecutors played a lengthy interview Gonzales gave to state investigators after the shooting.
In the interview, Gonzales recalled arriving at the school as one of the first officers and learning about the shooting from a coach.
“I was going over there towards her,” he said. “I see her fall in the dust cloud. So I get to her, and I realized she’s one of the coaches.”
According to Gonzales, he learned the approximate location and a basic description of the shooter from the coach, though the shooting began before he could act.
Gonzales told investigators that he could not see the shooter, but he tried to notify others over his radio.
“I notify everybody on the radio, the best I could. And then, you know, as soon as I start walking over there, I see the rounds come out of the window,” he said.
Gonzales also described trying to enter the school with four other officers, though they retreated after two were hit by gunfire.
“Everybody flew back, you know, so I think he got hit,” he said. “We kind of moved back.”
Two months before the shooting, Gonzales taught a course about responding to active shooters, according to testimony from Teresa Zamarripa, the officer manager at Southwest Texas College Law Enforcement Agency.
ABC News’ Juan Renteria contributed to this report.
Marimar Martinez, a Chicago teacher’s assistant who survived being shot five times by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in October 2025, attends a press conference with her lawyers at the law offices of Cheronis & Parente LLC and Gallagher & Kosner Law LLC on February 11, 2026, in Chicago, Illinois, United States. (Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(CHICAGO) — Last October, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that federal agents in Chicago were “forced to deploy their weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed US citizen” after their SUV was “rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars.”
But analysis of recently released body-camera footage of the shooting of Marimar Martinez and videos verified by nearby businesses and bystanders suggests that those claims were exaggerated — and that federal agents, knowing their actions were being recorded, appeared to coordinate with one another to explain their conduct that day.
Body camera footage and other evidence was released Tuesday after a federal judge last week granted a motion to permit the public release of the materials in the case.
The video shows that in the minute before the shooting, agents were being followed by two, not 10 vehicles. Agents stated they were “boxed in,” but at no time was their vehicle blocked from the front.
At no point in footage from an agent’s body-worn camera or from multiple surveillance cameras is a driver seen ramming the agents’ vehicle; instead, the video shows an agent appearing to steer toward the vehicle driven by Martinez, crashing into her, and then rapidly firing toward her.
Martinez, a U.S. citizen and teacher’s assistant, was shot five times during the incident. She’s now planning to sue DHS and the agent for allegedly making false claims about her following the shooting and labeling her a domestic terrorist.
While prosecutors originally alleged that Martinez “aggressively and erratically” pursued officers that day, a judge dismissed the criminal case against her with prejudice after a reversal by the Department of Justice, which sought to dismiss the case.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesperson said in a statement that the officer who shot Martinez was placed on administrative leave following the incident. The statement did not indicate the length of the administrative leave or when it began.
“CBP is committed to the highest standards of conduct, transparency, and accountability. All significant use-of-force incidents are thoroughly investigated, reviewed, and presented to the National Use of Force Review Board (NUFRB), an independent body comprised of senior CBP officials and representatives from DHS and DOJ, including the DOJ Civil Rights Division,” the statement said.
Below is a timeline of the incident based on the body camera footage and bystander video leading up to and after the shooting.
The lead-up 10:27:02 a.m.
Three federal agents are riding in an SUV in the first moments of video from an agent’s body-worn camera. Later, the video will reveal an Uber placard on the front of their SUV. One agent is seen speaking into the voice chat app on a nearby phone.
At the time, the Trump administration had surged federal resources for immigration enforcement in Chicago as part of “Operation Midway Blitz.”
According to a court filing, the agents were part of a protective detail assisting a nearby operation in Oaklawn. An FBI agent originally attested that the officers were being followed by multiple civilian vehicles.
10:28:17 a.m.
The agent’s body camera begins recording audio.
“Camera’s on,” the agent says.
The agent readies an assault rifle. With his finger on the trigger, one of the agents can be heard saying what sounds like either “do something, b—-,” or “hit something, b—-.”
10:28:35 a.m.
Another agent is seen pointing his handgun toward the right of the SUV.
A nearby driver repeatedly honks their horn, prompting one of the officers to remark, “Honk all you want.”
The agents’ vehicle is captured on a security camera on Kedzie Avenue. The SUV is flanked by Martinez, in a gray Nissan Rogue, to the agents’ left.
To their right is a GMC SUV, adorned with a Mexican flag on its hood, driven by Anthony Ruiz. Ahead of them are two cars: a sedan and a red pickup truck.
10:28:47 a.m.
Seconds later, the agent with the active body-worn camera says, “Alright, it’s time to get aggressive, get the f—- out. Because they’re trying to box us in.”
“If she hits us, it’s … ,” another agent can be heard saying.
10:28:57 a.m.
Charles Exum, the driver, appears to be the agent who says, “We’re going to make contact, we’re boxed in … we have got to get [inaudible] out of here. “
“We are boxed in,” the agent with the active body-worn camera repeats.
10:28:58 a.m.
The three vehicles briefly enter the frame of a security camera looking over a gas station parking lot.
Martinez, in the Nissan Rogue, is parallel with the agents to their left. Ruiz is behind them and to their right.
The pickup truck and the sedan, previously observed ahead of the agents’ vehicle, are also observed traveling several car lengths ahead of the agents.
10:29:01 a.m.
Exum appears to turn the car’s wheel to the left. A loud crash is heard, and the agents visibly react.
By this time, the two cars ahead of the agents have driven into the path of another security camera. The cars do not stop and drive out of view.
The shooting 10:29:04 a.m.
The agents’ vehicle comes to a stop. Their vehicle and Ruiz’s are seen stopped at the rightmost edge of the gas station security footage. The view of Martinez’s vehicle is blocked, and we do not see the agents’ vehicle make contact with hers.
Exum is seen holding a handgun in his right hand.
10:29:06 a.m.
“Out of the car,” the driver says, as he exits the car with his handgun drawn.
“Be advised, we’ve been struck, we’ve been struck,” the agent with the body-worn camera says.
A second later, five gunshots can be heard in rapid succession.
The agents’ SUV enters the field of view of another security camera. A drawing of the scene — made by one of the agents during their interview with the FBI, according to Martinez’s lawyers — indicated three vehicles were ahead of the agents’ SUV, but the footage shows that at the moment of the shooting, the agents’ vehicle has an unobstructed path forward.
10:29:09 a.m.
Martinez’s vehicle enters the frame of the security camera. She drives north, away from the scene.
10:29:11 a.m.
The agent with the body-worn camera points his rifle toward Ruiz’s vehicle, as it reverses and crashes into a parked car before turning to the left to drive away. Ruiz is later arrested at a gas station a half block away.
“Don’t you f—— move,” the officer says.
10:29:18 a.m.
As the agent turns around, his body camera shows that the SUV is not being blocked in front of it.
The aftermath 10:32:49 a.m.
Exum’s body-worn camera turns on about three minutes after firing his weapon.
10:39:19 a.m.
Exum tells a responding officer that he fired “five to seven shots” at Martinez.
“I don’t know if I hit her or not,” he says. “I [was] angled at the driver, I got five to seven rounds off at her.”
“It was a woman shooting?” the officer asked.
“No, I was shooting,” Exum said.
10:39:38 a.m.
Exum tells a responding officer that he “did the shooting” after Martinez hit his SUV.
“She already hit my vehicle, we got out to defend, she came forward, and that’s when I opened up on her,” he said. “We did not get shot at; we did the shooting.”
10:45:04 a.m.
As more officers arrive at the scene, Exum and the other agents begin to recount the incident and to ask whether his camera was on.
“We were getting out to defend because they already tried to box us in,” he said. “She was moving forward into me.”
“Camera on or no?” an officer said.
“No, I didn’t have it because we were [inaudible],” he said.
“That’s good, as long as you can justify it, bro,” the officer responds.
10:48:14 a.m.
As Exum prepares to light a cigarette, another officer acknowledges that their conversation is being recorded and advises him to “keep everything out.”
“So she hit you guys … You got boxed in?” an officer asked.
“We [were] getting boxed in, and I had to push left. She came in, she pulled over, stopped. I got out so we could defend,” Exum said.
“Hey, hey, just real quick though, since we’re recording, keep it [inaudible],” another officer says. “Keep everything out, you’re good man.”
10:50:30 a.m.
Another officer tells Exum to “keep [his] mouth shut” about the incident.
“Just so you know, you don’t give statements to anybody,” the officer says. “Absolutely no statements at all … You keep your mouth shut.”
An undated photo from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein is part of a collection of images released Dec. 18, 2025, by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. (House Oversight Committee Democrats)
(NEW YORK) — A group of alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein accused the Department of Justice of missteps, including violations of the law, in its partial release of files related to the disgraced financier’s abuse of young women and girls.
The DOJ faced a Friday deadline imposed by Congress to release a massive cache of records gathered during government investigations into the sex offender, who died in jail in 2019.
Justice officials released thousands of files — ranging from investigative documents to grand jury testimony to snapshots taken by Epstein and his friends — but said it would fail to fully release all the files by the deadline.
“Instead, the public received a fraction of the files, and what we received was riddled with abnormal and extreme redactions with no explanation,” a group of 19 women, including two Jane Does, said in a statement released on Monday. “At the same time, numerous victim identities were left unredacted, causing real and immediate harm.”
The statement, which was released early Monday by attorneys representing the women, also pointed to what they said was missing from the files. Omissions by either redactions or unreleased pages amounted to a failure, they said.
“No financial documents were released,” the statement said. “Grand jury minutes, though approved by a federal judge for release, were fully blacked out — not the scattered redactions that might be expected to protect victim names, but 119 full pages blacked out. We are told that there are hundreds of thousands of pages of documents still unreleased.”
“These are clear-cut violations of an unambiguous law,” the statement added.
Some documents disclosed on Friday with significant redactions were reposted early Saturday with some or all of the redactions lifted, according to a review of the files by ABC News.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on social media on Friday, as the initial files were being released, that “[a]dditional responsive materials will be produced as our review continues, consistent with the law and with protections for victims.” The DOJ on Sunday released a similar statement, adding that reviews of the material would continue “as we receive additional information.”
President Donald Trump in November had signed a bill that gave the Justice Department 30 days to release the materials.
The statement from alleged victims noted that DOJ officials had structured the release of documents in a way that made it “difficult or impossible” for Epstein’s alleged victims to find information that may be important to their cases. And they said they hadn’t been contacted about potential redactions or withholdings prior to the documents’ release.
“It is alarming that the United States Department of Justice, the very agency tasked with upholding the law, has violated the law, both by withholding massive quantities of documents, and by failing to redact survivor identities,” the women’s statement said.
The women called for “immediate” oversight from Congress “to ensure the Department of Justice fulfils its legal obligations.”
Separately on Sunday, Brittany Henderson and Brad Edwards — attorneys who represent more than 200 survivors of Epstein and his convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell — had told ABC News that since the Epstein files were posted on Friday, they had been hearing from clients who have seen their names or other identifying information un-redacted documents in the DOJ’s disclosure.
Henderson and Edwards said they had been working through the weekend with federal officials in New York and D.C. to take down documents containing personal information of alleged victims, many of whom have never had their names disclosed in any context connected to Epstein.
In one instance, Henderson and Edwards said, a sealed document from settled civil litigation containing the names of more than two dozen alleged victims — was posted without redactions. That document was among those that have been removed from the DOJ’s site, the lawyers said.
The attorneys said that about 15 documents had by Sunday been pulled from the site — at least temporarily — as a result of their consultations with the government.
DOJ officials said in a social media statement on Sunday afternoon that they had “received incoming from individuals alleging to be victims and their lawyers, requesting that certain information be removed. Out of an abundance of caution, the material is temporarily removed for review and will be released again with appropriate redactions, if legally required.”
Blanche said earlier on Sunday in an interview on NBC News that the DOJ would be responsive to concerns raised by victims about potential exposure of identifying information and insisted, despite the slow release of materials, that DOJ is complying with the law.
“The statute also requires us to protect victims and—and so the reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply that to protect victims,” he said. “So the same individuals that are out there complaining about the lack of documents that were produced on Friday are the same individuals who apparently don’t want us to protect victims.”
“The reality is anybody, any victim, any victim’s lawyers, any victim rights group, can reach out to us and say, ‘Hey, Department of Justice, there’s a document, there’s a photo, there’s something within the Epstein files that identifies me,'” he added. “And we will then, of course, pull that off and investigate.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the House Judiciary Committee, February 11, 2026 in Washington. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department’s failure this week to convince a grand jury to hand up an indictment against six members of Congress is the latest stumbling block faced by prosecutors as they seek to rebuke the administration’s perceived political opponents.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., was unable to secure an indictment against six congressmembers after President Donald Trump called for them to be arrested and tried for posting a video on social media telling military service members that they could refuse illegal orders, sources said Tuesday.
Following a classified briefing on the deadly strikes on alleged drug boats in Latin America, Sen. Mark Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Rep. Jason Crow, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, and Rep. Chris DeLuzio, all former members of the military and intelligence community, posted a video in November telling current members that — per the Uniform Code of Military Justice — they should refuse to carry out unlawful orders.
“Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL,” Trump posted to social media in response to the video on Nov. 20.
Prosecutors under U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro sought to convince a grand jury to indict the six lawmakers, but the panel did not comply.
It is exceedingly rare for a grand jury to not indict after prosecutors have made their presentation. In fiscal year 2016, the most recent year for which figures are available from the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the DOJ sought federal charges against 69,451 felony defendants — and in only six cases did a grand jury return a vote of no bill, indicating a refusal to indict.
Yet the current Justice Department has faced this outcome several times in recent months while attempting to prosecute perceived foes of the president’s agenda.
“This is pretty rare for a prosecutor to want an indictment and not get one,” University of Illinois Professor Andrew Leipold, an expert on the federal judiciary system, told ABC News. “The most obvious answer is that the government is being aggressive in prosecuting federal crimes, and grand juries are simply not in agreement.”
Vice President JD Vance has said that any such actions are “driven by law and not by politics.”
After a federal judge in November dismissed the cases the Justice Department had brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, the DOJ again sought an indictment of the New York AG.
The move came after U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that that the appointment of Trump’s handpicked interim U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, was unconstitutional and that Halligan acted in an “unlawful” and “ineffective” manner when she brought charges of making false statements against Comey and mortgage fraud charges against James.
Ten days after Judge Cameron’s ruling, a federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, refused to indict James on the same charges when the Justice Department attempted to refile the case, according to sources.
A second grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia’s Alexandria branch then rejected the charges when the DOJ attempted to file the case for a third time.
“This unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day,” James’ attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement.
Last August, D.C. prosecutors failed to secure an indictment against a man accused of throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent after video of the confrontation went viral and provoked an all-out public relations blitz from the White House and Justice Department touting his arrest and the federal assault charge against him.
Sean Charles Dunn was arrested on charges of allegedly throwing a Subway sandwich at a CBP agent who was patrolling with Metro Transit Police in northwest Washington on the night of Aug. 9, amid the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in the capital.
“You f—— fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn is alleged to have shouted at the CBP officer before allegedly throwing the sandwich, which struck the officer in the chest.
Prosecutors similarly failed to convince a federal grand jury in D.C. to indict a woman who was accused by the government of assaulting an FBI agent during an inmate swap with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The U.S. attorney’s office was unable to secure an indictment against Sidney Reid despite making three separate attempts, according to court records.
ABC News’ Alexander Mallin and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
