Law&Crime Sidebar - Mom Accused of Killing Kid in Exorcism Makes Big Ask to Court

Episode Date: January 15, 2026

The family accused of killing a 3-year-old girl during an exorcism are now claiming the assault case should be thrown out. Claudia Elisa Hernandez, her brother Aaron and her father Rene are invoking California's Racial Justice Act, arguing that prosecutors and police have a bias against their religious faith, ethnicity, and national origin. Civil Rights Attorney Joe Richardson joins Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber to break down the defense's controversial argument, the shocking details from court documents, and why this case could set a massive legal precedent.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Grow your own audience today – go to https://www.opus.pro/sidebar for 1 week free plus 50% off the first 3 months of Opus Pro. HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's so hard now, you know, because going from having her every day until not having her at all, you know, 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 of 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 reframes footage and it even cleans up audio. It is so easy. You just visit opus.pro slash sidebar. You sign up. and in minutes you will have perfectly edited clips ready to go for tic-tok, shorts, reels,

opus clip is your one-stop shop. And having a tool like opus clip 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.combeau slash 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, a Raleigh Naomi Proctor, of what she believed was a demon inside of her. Okay? But now this is the update. She and her co-defendants, her family, we'll talk about it. They're 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 2nd Street in downtown San Jose. A coroner testified at one point that Aurelli's cause of death was a combination of mechanical asphyxia 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-Santo, and her father, René Trigeros Hernandez, the pastor at this church, where Arelli died, charged them all with felony assault on a child causing death. And I've 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, Aurelli 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, Aurelli 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, an 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 Arelli. And as to why Hernandez and her co-defendants 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, Aureli was screaming and crying. Claudia said she knew it was not her baby because Aurelli was always

happy. Claudia then continued to describe to Officer Reyes how Ralelli 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 Aurelli 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 O'Reilly. 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 O'Reilly as an exorcism. He said he had previously done too, but he had never done an exorcism on a child. So Renee Sr., this pastor was also interviewed in the weeks and months after O'Reilly'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 Arelli 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 can know this to be true and why Arele was only going to live to be three, Renee Sr. shrugged his

shoulders. Renee Sr. said he believed everything Claudia was saying to him. Claudia said that Raleigh 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 R.J.A. 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 do. 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

a 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. First of all, for anybody who doesn't know, what is this act? Okay. I don't know if a lot of people know about this law. Right. So, yeah, it's really interesting. It's a way of California law doing what states can do in terms of level in the playing field. So going back to going forward, there was a case many, many years ago in the Supreme Court where there was a black man that was convicted of armed robbery and murder. And what they tried to do in the cases 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 and more severe sentence than someone else that was similarly situated, that you could follow motion, and that could be changed. And it could be changed from any of a number 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, et cetera, 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. 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 have been brought 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, et cetera, 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 and tension doesn't even matter. And so you really get at something that may have a disparate impact, et cetera, and as 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 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 explain this, okay? 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 Sr., who's from El Salvador, raised the co-defendants, 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 belief system, Pentecostal Christianity, typically they believe in divine supernatural intervention and that the alleged exorcism of his granddaughter was, quote,

not Renee'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 six 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 that when this little girl died, Renee Sr. 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. And 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 RJA 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 their systemic bias here based on their religion and their national origin with a 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,

they said that either the DA 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 harm 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 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 following my religion. Right. Yeah, 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 to harm them. I thought the exorcission would come out. It'd be a little easier. I mean, we'd get ridiculous, right? Well, I was just thinking about this 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 a set period of days. And if you have a minor child who wants to do that, you have a minor child who wants to fast,

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 churchgoing person that even someone that fast or whatever else, there is some certain volition 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, 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? She may argue that it does, right? 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 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 up front about what happened. And it's shocking, but maybe that could help their argument. I'll go out on the limb here and say, Jesse, that I don't believe that the attorneys

that first consulted, that they first consulted with listened 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 trier of 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 volition 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 counter argument to it, but do you think there's a possibility they take life in prison off the table?

Do you think that the judge would say, this isn't applying? Because you do wonder if they're convicted, could they have a successful appeal based on this 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're convicted, they'll probably mount this in an appeal and say the case should never have been brought. I mean, what do you anticipate? I think the case is going to stay around for sure. I think that will then 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 triers 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, et cetera, if not for any other reason, then the idea that maybe the daughter claims is 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 trier of 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 in run around a potential appealable issue, et cetera. 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 45-minute 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 happened. It's so hard now, you know, because going from having her every day to not having her at all, you know, it's so hard.

It's hard, you know. 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. But, you know, it's okay. It's okay because I know she's in a better place. And God knows what he allows these things, you know. And now everybody wants to know what happened to her, like her, the cost of her death. And I will talk to you guys about it.

You know, I will, but when I'm ready. I can see here and be negative about the thing like, oh, like I wish you could go back, this and this and that. But it's like, there is no point of me doing that, you know, because I cannot change what it is, you know, what is, you know, it is what it is. So I've learned to think positive, you know, because 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, et cetera, and that she was. really wanted what was best for her daughter and did not want to harm her. If that gets an evidence, assuming it gets an 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 if they're people that have lost cats and puppies, cats and dogs, and seem more sympathetic and seeing 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 jury's not going to want to believe her. Joe Richardson, 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 judge will be open to hearing it. We'll see.

But thank you so much. Really appreciate it, as always. good seeing you jessie 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