UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MAURICIO CELIS, PETITIONER vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-335 GUY WILLIAMS, ET AL. RESPONDENTS en cen con con ton won on AEFIDAVIT OF ANGELICA E. HERNANDEZ Angelica Hernandez appeared in person before me today and stated under oath: “My name is Angelica Hernandez. I am above the age of eighteen years, and I am fully competent to make this affidavit. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.” “Lwas one of the Assistant District Attorneys who participated in the trial of Mauricio Celis, in Cause No. 07-CR-4046-E and Cause No. 08-CR-1365-E. I made argument, questioned witnesses, and was present the entire trial. I eft the Nueces County District Attorney's Office in approximately August of 2009. In early 2010, I was appointed special prosecutor by then District, Attorney Carlos Valdez to act as lead attorney in The State of Texas vs. Mauricio Celis in Cause No. 07-CR-4048-E for the charge of Impersonating a Public Servant.” “Ihave kept up with the appeal process of Maurcio Celis’s cases, because I was part of the trial court process. I have also kept up with the appeal process in Cause No. 07-CR-4046-E and ‘Cause No. 08-CR-1365-E because the trial process was unlike any other I had seen up to that point in my career, and to date. “1 remember reading the juror affidavits submitted for purposes of the motion to recuse Judge Luitjen and being somewhat shell shocked. I had never been in a case, criminal or civil, Page tof 4where jurors submitted affidavits post-trial like this, much less affidavits stating unequivocally they felt the judge was biased. During the motion to recuse hearing, the jurors’ faces, tone and demeanor told a very clear story. The jurors who came in to testify at the hearing were adamant they believed the Judge was biased against Mauricio Celis and his attorneys and favored the State and its attorneys. It was also clear the bias and prejudice was something they discussed during their deliberations and took into consideration while reflecting on the case.” “When Judge Banales recused Judge Luitjen he made some findings while issuing his ruling. At the end of the day, he found Judge Luitjen should be recused because the Judge was biased or prejudiced or gave the appearance of being biased or prejudiced. ‘The State of Texas never challenged those findings. Instead, the State of Texas moved to recuse Judge Banales which was granted. When the new Judge was assigned, there was never a challenge to the findings of Judge Banales. The State simply moved forward with the new Judge assigned. In other words, a State District Judge already found the proceedings were tainted and the original trial Judge was biased or prejudiced, or gave the appearance of being biased or prejudiced. “[ have reflected on this trial several times during the course of my practice since these cases were tried. I do remember the trial and the demeanor of Judge Luitjen toward the defense attorneys and Mauricio Celis. Judge Luitjen’s dislike became clear that at times I would cringe and look down if the defense attomeys objected to something because of the reaction I anticipated ‘was coming from Judge Luitjen. I do not remember ever worrying Judge Luitjen would react to the State the way he was reacting to the defense. I do remember thinking if I were the defense I would stop objecting or challenging evidence in front of the jury given the choice of facing more heightened negative reaction from the Judge or challenging the evidence and protecting the record. I do not believe an attorney should ever be put in that position, It was clear the jury was watching Page 2 of 4the Judge and all of his conduct and absorbing it. Of course, I also felt it was very good for the State at the time.” “Transcripts do not reflect everything occurring in the trial process. Judge Luitjen did make faces, sigh, take long pauses, scowl at times, and I could sense a lot of tension in the courtroom surrounding the judge and the defense. It was the timing of the faces, the sighs, the pauses and the scowls which seemed to impact the trial process. The Judge would make faces or roll his eyes when he did not seem to believe or like what the witnesses were saying. The Judge would react negatively when the defense objected to something with a tone in his voice and a look on his face which seemed to indicate his opinion was that it was a waste of judicial time to have to make such a ruling or entertain the objection. I do remember the defense attorneys commenting when we were on breaks that they were facing an uphill battle with Judge Luitjen. I do remember agreeing with them in my mind; whether or not I vocalized it, I cannot remember.” “During the trial, I came to believe Judge Luitjen did not care for the defense team or Mauricio Celis; he did not believe their witnesses testimony; he felt Maurcio Celis was guilty of the offenses charged; and he was favorable to the State in the case. T also felt Judge Luitjen was more accommodating to the State. My belief was formed as a result of Judge Luitjen’s conduct both during trial when the jury was present and hearings outside the presence of the jury.” ‘Angelica Hernandez Page 3 of 4State of Texas § County of Nueces § SIGNED under oath before me on_Séptémbey 1,20 |e Notary Publi AAUOREY HAGEMANN My Commission Expires gy August 27, 2018 Page 40f4