Mom Accused of Killing Kid in Exorcism Makes Big Ask to Court

It's so hard now, you know, because. >> going from having her every day to. not having her at all, you know, it's. it's so hard. >> The family accused of killing a. three-year-old girl during an exorcism, talking the mother, the uncle, the. grandfather. They are now claiming that. this case should be thrown out because. of bias. Bias against their religion. And I got to ask, could this work? Welcome to Sidebar presented by Law and.

Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. By the way, as you're watching this and. maybe you're putting things out on. social media, maybe you're into content. creation as well. Have you ever wondered. how we're able to share so many clips so. quickly from all these stories? We use. something called Opus Clip. Okay, this. is an all-in-one AI editor that makes it. so easy to cut, create, and upload. videos across any platform through AI. Opus Clip generates B-roll. It refframes. footage, and it even cleans up audio. It. is so easy. You just visit. opus.pro/sidebar. You sign up, you upload, and in minutes.

you will have perfectly edited clips. ready to go for Tik Tok, shorts, reals. OpusClip is your one-stop shop. And. having a tool like OpusClip means that. our producers can get you viral. courtroom updates instantly. This is the. most powerful tool there is to share. ideas and edit like a pro. So go to. opus.pro/sidebar. to get a free week and then 50% off. Quite the update in a story that we. covered a long time ago on Sidebar. This. concerns 29-year-old Claudia Alyssa. Hernandez, who allegedly killed her. daughter on a church altar during an.

exorcism out in California. This is a. way to rid her three-year-old daughter, Aureli Naomi Proctor, of what she. believed was a demon inside of her. Okay, but now this is the update. She. and her co-fendants, her family, we'll. talk about it, they are fighting to have. the case tossed out under something. called California's Racial Justice Act, RJA, arguing that this case was quote. infected with bias. Let me explain that. So, back on September 24th, 2021, three.

family members allegedly held down this. little girl for hours and allegedly. tortured her until she died. Her body. was found by firefighters inside of this. church that was located on Second Street. in downtown San Jose. A coroner. testified at one point that Aelli's. cause of death was a combination of. mechanical esphyxia and smothering. That. she had injuries including brain. swelling, blood in the lungs, marks on. the neck, injuries inside the mouth. What happened to this girl is just. unthinkable. The district attorney's.

office charged Hernandez, her brother. Renee Aaron Hernandez Santos, and her. father Renee Triggeros Hernandez, the. pastor at this church where died, charged them all with felony assault on. a child causing death. And I got to give. you an example of what I'm talking about. here. So it kind of puts into. perspective the argument that they're. making. So, this is from a filing from. prosecutors and it states, quote, "During this assault, Aelli Doe fought. for her life as three trusted adults. forcibly grabbed her by her neck, torso,

back, and legs, smothered her by. repeatedly attempting to pry open her. mouth to make her vomit, and held her. with so much force that she had internal. bleeding and injuries." The evidence. shows that while this assault was. ongoing, Oreli struggled to escape from. her abusers. She clamped her mouth in. resistance to the adults who were trying. to pry it open. During the assault, the. victim repeatedly said no. As she was. fighting for her life at the hands of. her mother, grandfather, and uncle, she. told her mother, "I love you." When.

pressure was applied to her neck and. torso, she was repeatedly rendered. unconscious for moments at a time. This. ongoing assault resulted in the tragic. death of Aelli. And as to why Hernandez. and her codefendants seemingly believed. this little girl was possessed, again. going back to that filing, an officer. spoke with Hernandez. Quote, "She. explained that the previous night Arelli. was screaming and crying." Claudia said. she knew it was not her baby because. Arelli was always happy. Claudia then.

continued to describe to Officer Reyes. howelli looked different the night. before, saying her eyes were different. When asked if she thinks she caused her. daughter's death, Claudia replied, "In a. way," Claudia admitted that although she. thought Areli was possessed, she had no. idea if the method they were using would. lead to the demon being expelled. Keep. that in mind for later. Now, Hernandez. allegedly told detectives that God told. her that he was going to take a relic. Aaron, the brother, reportedly told. police that he could speak in tongues,

that he was divinely gifted the power of. healing. Again, from the prosecution. filing, he described what they did to. Oreli as an exorcism. He said he had. previously done two, but he had never. done an exorcism on a child. So Renee. Senior, this pastor, was also. interviewed in the weeks and months. after Oreli's death. He openly admitted. to being in the room during the prayer. ceremony, but said it wasn't an. exorcism. When he arrived, they told him. that Aelli had an evil spirit. Claudia. told him that the girl was going to die. He said Claudia had already bought.

everything because she knew God was. going to take her. He described a dress. Claudia had bought for Arelli for her. funeral. When asked how he could know. this to be true and why Aelli was only. going to live to be three, Renee Senior. shrugged his shoulders. Renee Senior. said he believed everything Claudia was. saying to him. Claudia said that Arelli. would scream and was not a normal girl. So, you're kind of seeing different. perspectives here and who knew what and. maybe arguably who's blaming who. But. that brings us to what just happened. Okay. The attorneys for these three.

defendants filed this joint RJA motion. I mentioned it before. They want this. case essentially thrown out under. California's racial justice act that. authorities have this bias or animus. towards them because of their religious. faith, their ethnicity, their national. origin. That is what I want to get into. All right, so let's discuss this. Let's. see if this is going to work. I want to. bring on friend of the show, friend of. mine. Haven't seen him in quite some. time. Civil rights attorney Joe. Richardson is back with us. Joe, thank. you so much for taking the time. Uh, first of all, for anybody who doesn't.

know, what is this act? Okay, I I don't. know if a lot of people know about this. law, >> right? So, yeah, it's it's really. interesting. It's a way of uh California. law doing what states can do in terms of. leveling the playing field. So, going. back to go going forward, there was a a. case many many years ago um in the. Supreme Court where there was a a black. man that was convicted of armed robbery. and murder. And what they tried to do. and the case went to the appeals court. is to say that what was happening to him. in terms of charging and or sentencing.

was disproportionate to people of other. races. And the court basically. prescribed this test that says that it's. fine if statistically speaking this is. more likely to happen to one race versus. another which implies unfairness. unfairness but there has to be more. there actually has to be something. specific to this case which basically. set up an impossible standard. So what. the state of California did several. years ago, they passed the California. Racial Justice Act. And what the racial.

justice act does is that in particular. types of cases where there is. demonstrable bias for race, ethnicity, or national origin either in things that. were said that may have had racial. implications during prosecution or. during the procedures by a judge. For. instance, someone was charged with. something that may be under similar. facts, someone of another race or. ethnicity may not have been, or whether. they got more sentencing, a more severe. sentence than someone else that was. similarly situated that you could file a.

motion and that could be changed. And it. could be changed from many of a number. of ways to total dismissal entirely to. getting rid of a juror to changing or. making it where someone couldn't get the. death penalty when they were otherwise. eligible for the death penalty. So it's. basically cast a wider net to get at. discriminatory bias etc. And it's easier. to show since the state can prescribe. more protection than the federal. government as long as they don't. prescribe less so that hopefully in a. case in a proper case you can level the.

playing field somewhat. >> Let me just even get a little bit more. granular here just so we're on the same. page as we talk about it. So it. basically says right the state shall not. seek or obtain a criminal conviction or. seek or obtain or impose a sentence on. the basis of race, ethnicity or national. origin. So you have to show that. prosecutors, investigators here had some. sort of bias. And by the way, correct me. if I'm wrong. Like you said, this could. modify a sentence, a conviction could be. thrown out, maybe a case potentially. dismissed, but you don't even have to. show that that bias altered the trial.

outcome. Right? So even if a jury. convicted somebody based on the. evidence, if you could show that case. shouldn't even been brought uh in the. first place because there was a bias in. the system, that's enough. You don't. even have to show the jurors were. affected by it. >> Right. Exactly. And right next door to. that, what's really important, Jesse, is. the idea that it doesn't even have to be. intentional. >> So often crimes either happen or don't. happen or bias, discriminatory action,

etc. shown or not shown because it has. to be shown to be intentional. It has to. be shown that it was against one's mind. Here, it doesn't even have to be. intentional. It can be institutionally. related. It can be related to something. where the judge doesn't even know he's. being biased or the prosecutor doesn't. even know that they're being it doesn't. matter as long as you can show the bias. Intention doesn't even matter. And so, you really get at something that may. have may have a disperate impact, etc., and is a way of leveling the playing. field. >> Okay. So, I want to apply it to this.

case because people will look at this. and say, "Wait, wait a second. Wait a. second. Wait a second. This is a. horrible crime. Horrible crime. Isn't. this just a way for a defense attorney. to get her off the hook, to get the. family members off the hook?" So, let me. let me explain this, okay? And we'll. talk about if this is going to work. Here's the argument. So, the. prosecution, my understanding, is. seeking 25 years to life in prison. that. the defendants now are arguing that. there has never been a case like this. before where you have a quote and this. is from the argument a genuine effort at.

faith healing with no ulterior criminal. motive. So the argument being that Renee. Senior who's from El Salvador raised the. codefendants his son and daughter to. follow Pentecostal Christianity that. they were devout members of the church. So essentially that people from El. Salvador who believe in this Pentecostal. uh belief system, Pentecostal. Christianity, typically they believe in. divine supernatural intervention and. that the alleged exorcism of his.

granddaughter was quote not Rene's first. experience with such things. As an adult. preaching, he witnessed instances of. possession, including a woman who had. gone to the United States, had a spell. cast on her, and came back possessed. Renee was one of 12 men who conducted a. prayer ceremony to liberate her. At the. end of 6 hours of prayer, a crocodile 12. to 18 inches in length emerged from her, was caught, and was burned. This is what. the defense's motion states. So, the. defense argues that Claudia Hernandez.

legitimately believed that her daughter. was possessed. thinking, quote, "Something evil was inside of her." That. you had Renee allegedly saying Claudia. believed that this young girl was. possessed by evil spirits, something. from a cell phone that triggered it. And. the main argument is is that when this. little girl died, Renee Senior was just. following his faith as he has always. done before. According to the court. filing, he was quote doing his best to. protect his granddaughter from harm and.

tragically failing in that endeavor. And. so in his religion, aggressive exorcisms. may be necessary in order to expel a. demon. This is what the belief system is. according to the defense. And the. defense attorneys argue that's exactly. what happened here. Quote, "In some. churches, exorcism is a calm ritual. involving prayers. In others, however, it is wild and sometimes even violent. involving a group holding the possessed. person down." This is again according to. the defense motion. So now defense. attorneys are pointing to examples of. authorities discriminating against the.

defendants because of their beliefs and. who they are. For example, they cite in. this R.J.A. motion there is a claim that. police called the church where this. young girl was found a quote makeshift. pseudo church. They also say the DA. showed a bias when describing what may. have happened in that church as. unimaginable. Joe, you got to walk me. through this because when would religion. trump the law? If you have a religion. that says, "Hey, we believe in," and I'm. not saying this, but if you're saying, "We believe in burning people at the.

stake," it can't trump, you know, criminal law. But at the same time, if. they're saying their intent was not to. kill her, their intent was this violent. exorcism that they thought was necessary. to expel a demon, and they're being. unfairly criminalized and penalized for. it. Is that a legitimate argument? >> Well, it's certainly interesting. I. mean, they're basically saying there's. systemic bias here based on their. religion and their national origin with. uh grandfather being from from El.

Salvador. And you underscore an. important point where you have to strike. a balance between you can't just hide. under the cloak of religion when you're. harming children. Full stop. You can't. just say because I didn't mean to and it. was under my religious belief. Therefore, there is no redress under the. law. the law handles when people die at. someone else's hands, but it wasn't. necessarily intentional. It's criminally. negligent homicide. It doesn't mean that. there should be no liability here. So, I.

think that they make a very novel. argument because even those words that. they said that the that the either the. DA or or the police said about the. church don't necessarily recommend or. call to ethnicity, race, and national. origin. And so, therefore, I think that. they have a problem and it underscores. the difficulty that they have. Basically, what they're saying is that. because we didn't mean to kill the. child, and of course in the memos in. this case, there's terrible testimony. about how this child was trying to get.

away. The child knew that the child was. being harmed and said, "Mommy, I love. you." And all of these things that would. actually absolutely tear at. heartstrings. The law is the reason to. protect children. The law protects. everyone, but it absolutely protects. children. And so there has to be some. dividing line between um allowing for. religious belief and religious. expression but not harming children in. the process. >> because this would also give an out to. people, right? Who commit crimes and say. I'm just I'm just following my religion. You also. >> I mean it would defeat the purpose of.

the law being the law, right? Okay, just. hide under the religion. I can get off. of everything. So I can do whatever it. is I want to. I can go cut somebody in. half in the middle of town square. And I. did it for religious reasons and I. didn't mean uh to harm them. I thought. the exorcism would come out. It'd be a. little easier that I mean we get. ridiculous, right? >> Well, I was just thinking about this as. we as I was covering it and looking into. it. Like there are certain religions at. certain periods of the year where you. fast, right? You either fast for a day, you fast for set period of days. And if.

you have a minor child who wants to. participate in that, the parent. shouldn't be charged with child abuse. for not feeding the child because you. could argue that is based on my. established religion, right? I guess. that would be an example where this. might apply. >> I guess, but at the same time, let's say. you do a fast for 30 days and they're. just drinking water. Well, that's. contrary. And I would even suggest being. a church-going person that even someone. that fasts or whatever else there is. some certain valition that belongs to.

someone that has more maturity that says. if this person wants to do this will. allow that but they can't necessarily. make that choice for a child to the. detriment. Even something like that that. you know maybe that's going to be okay. but even that is only to a point. >> Now whether they mount this defense they. would have to say we were in it. We 100%. believed it. Something interesting came. up during these interviews with. Hernandez and it seems argument could be. maybe she wasn't particularly involved.

in this church. Maybe he didn't believe. it because according to these court. documents, she hadn't been to a church. service since 2016 and she had recently. started going there to pray. Quote, Claudia said she does not necessarily. believe in possession because of the. church she goes to, but because of other. things she has experienced in her life. where at the school like places that. I've been that I know that are like it's. just things that I know that are. possessed or people, you know. She said. she always believed in it since she was. a kid. She described it as being like a. medium. Joe, does that affect the.

analysis? >> Uh, she may argue that that it does, right? And and I would be interested to. see how this plays out because depending. on the motion and the defense that they. have to actually take. Could there be a. place where the m rubber meets the road. and the attorneys for the grandfather. actually have a different presentation. than the attorneys for the daughter. herself who was the mother? But I don't. know if it gets split that way as it. were or in the arguments made because. they can say she wasn't part of the.

church so much or whatever. Of course. that doesn't help her. that makes her. more liable as opposed to less liable. >> But I do wonder them allegedly admitting. to all of this, wouldn't that help them? I mean, really, like they didn't think. that they were guilty that they thought. that they were doing the right thing. They thought that they were trying to. help her. I mean, would that be kind of. they're protected under the law. They're. immune. It's all about religion. The. fact that they were making a lot of. these statements right afterwards was. shocking to say the least. And it wasn't. like they were on the, you know, the run. and they were, you know, trying to hide.

it. seems to me at least at this point. from what I've seen the argument could. be they were really upfront about what. happened and it's shocking but maybe. that could help their argument. >> I'll go out on a limb here and say Jesse. that I don't believe that the attorneys. that first consulted that they first. consulted with listen to the facts and. said racial justice act right away. I. don't know that they did that. That. being said, they absolutely have to lean. in here because a tryer fact has to. believe that they believed that they.

were actually doing the right thing and. not trying to harm the child. That being. said, because I don't know that this. happens very often, racial justice acts. used to actually justify an exorcism, per se. Because of that, you still have. to ask some other questions that aren't. necessarily that you don't necessarily. have precedence for. The moment that she. said, "Well, God told me that I was. going to lose her." Does that affect. what you do? How much torture was there.

after that was said? Was that after the. torture, before the torture, during the. torture? Are we 10 hours in? You know, a. lot of those types of things. It's an. absolutely slippery slope and I think. that it's a novel argument but they. absolutely to your point have to lean. into the fact that they believed that. this was a religious ritual and. therefore it takes away the valition. towards them killing basically the. daughter granddaughter that would give. them the maximum liability under the. law. >> What do you think the court would do.

here? Obviously they'll have the. counterargument to it, but do you think. there's a possibility they they take. life in prison uh off the table? Do you. think that uh the judge would say this. isn't applying? Um because you do wonder. if they're convicted, could they have a. successful appeal based on this? If if. the judge currently doesn't, you know, allow is not going to dismiss the case. based on this particular law. You know, if they are convicted, they'll probably. mount this in an appeal and say the case. should never have been brought. I mean, what do what do you anticipate?

>> I think the case is going to stay around. uh for sure. I think that will then uh. have the different attorneys deciding. what arguments that they're going to. potentially embrace to try to lessen. their liability standing here. If it is. true that the daughter didn't attend the. church so much in the last several. years, maybe there's an argument for the. grandfather that, you know, he kind of. sideswipes it a bit and says, "I'm very. much in the category." He doesn't have. to say anything about the daughter, but. he can distinguish himself as it. pertains to the triards of fact.

Clearly, they're going to ride this all. the way into the sunset. they'll appeal. it, you know, after to the point that. there's a conviction, etc., if not for. any other reason than the idea that. maybe the daughter says claims that she. shouldn't be similarly situated. For. now, they seem to be similarly situated. at least in terms of their presentation, but even placed before a tri fact, if. there's a chance that maybe they're. successful on appeal, could the DA. possibly maybe the DA possibly decides. to charge them a bit differently, right?

to kind of run make an inr run around a. potential appealable issue, etc. But. even then, the argument is so novel, I. don't even know if the DA actually does. that. I would just be interested to see. how the judge rules and what the judge. says in the ruling that perhaps gives. defendants, any of them or all of them, some pause to believe that maybe they. can do better at trial compared to. others or maybe they can have less. liability or have a good appealable.

issue. >> I wanted to ask you real quick before I. let you go about this. If the trial. continues, if this case continues, could. this play a role? So, in January of. 2022, this is just days before she was. arrested, Hernandez posted a video. online about her daughter. And during. about the 45minute video, Hernandez. recounts memories of her daughter from. the time she was conceived until her. death. And at times, she appears to be. holding back tears, but then there are. other times arguably she seems to be. making light kind of what of what. happened. so hard now, you know, because.

going from having her every day to. not having her at all, you know, it's. it's so hard. It's hard, you know, and. and to think that I'm not going to see. her grow up, you know, like how I. thought that I was going to see her grow. up, you know, like. But, you know, it's okay. It's okay because I know she's in a. better place, you know, and God knows. why he allows these things, you know,

and I know everybody wants to know what. happened to her like her the cause of. her death and I will talk to you guys. about it, you know. I will, but when I'm. ready. I could sit here and be negative. about the thing like, oh, like I wish I. could go back and this and this and. that. But it's like there is no point of. me doing that, you know, because I. cannot change what is, you know, it is. what it is. So, I I've learned to think positive, you. know, because.

it's it's it's many reasons why God took. her. >> Joe, is that going to play a role in. this case? >> I don't know that it is other than make. her less sympathetic, right? Because my. sense is, as far as we know, she's going. to go and argue that she loved her. daughter, that they did this because. they thought that this was the right. thing to do, that she was into faith. healing, etc., and that she really. wanted what was best for her daughter. and did not want to harm her. If that. gets in evidence, assuming it gets in. evidence and it makes her look less. sensitive, then what I think happens is.

sometimes you get a piece of evidence. in, it makes someone less believable at. the matter at hand, which is over here. So, she wants you to believe this, but. over here she seems less than. sympathetic. She seems to be acting like. there if there are people that have lost. cats and puppies, cats and dogs, and. seem more sympathetic and seem more. sincere and more in mourning than she. does, she has a problem because my sense. is that makes her less believable at the. matter at hand because among other. things, the juryy's not going to want to.

believe her. >> Joe Richardson, uh, really appreciate. you coming on. This is a case we're. going to continue to follow, see where. it progresses, see if this motion has. any weight to it, and whether or not. the, you know, the judge will be open to. hearing it. We'll see. Uh, but thank you. so much. Really appreciate it as always. >> Good seeing you, Jesse, like always. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so. much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should. get your podcast. You can follow me on X. or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll.

speak to you next time.