N 

\j\_ 

YVONNE ROSALES 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

34TN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

El Paso, Hudspeth and Culberson Counties 

September 10, 2022 

Re: State of Texas v. Patrick Crusius 

TO THE HONORABLE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 

In light of the Constitutional 6th Amendment speedy trial issues involved in this 

case and since the State of Texas has already provided notice of intent to seek the death 

penalty, we have determined it was necessary to file the attached Motion to Recuse the 

Honorable Judge Sam Medrano to memorialize the severe retaliation we are receiving to 

prevent us from prosecuting this case. 

At this point, there is even a conspiracy to have me removed from office after 

being duly elected, all because I refuse defense counsel Joe Spencer's demands that I 

remove the death penalty. Please note that Joe Spencer showed up to the July 1 "status 

hearing" and read a statement to the Court that was surreptitiously prepared, which rvas a 

clear attack on my person and my administration. I would note that he continuously and 

inappropriately kept representing that he knew and understood what the Honorable Judge 

David Guaderrama was thinking and his positions on the case. The introduction of 

statements without laying the foundation is Joe Spencer's inappropriate effort to pit the 

state case against the federal case in an attempt to delay both cases, since he has a staff of 

16 people receiving taxpayer funds with no clear accountability. In other words, the 

financial interests of Joe Spencer and his legal team have a clear conflict with the 

defendant's ability to have his case heard pursuant to the 6th Amendment speedy trial 

issue. 

The retaliation also includes Judge Medrano's appointment of Justin Underwood 

to in effect harass me and unlawfully issue subpoenas for me and other unrelated parties. 

Justin Underwood on August 17, 2022, called my staff and issued a series of threats that 

are potentially criminal in nature. In light of the bomb threats our office has previously 

received, I am forced to take every threat seriously. 

We would very respectfully note that the State was the first to arrest and indict the 

defendant in this case, and the first to seek the death penalty, and Judge Medrano insists 

on having hearings without the presence of the defendant. In light of the extreme 

El Paso County Courthouse . 500 East San Antonio Street, 2nd Floor 

El Paso, Texas 79901-2420 (915) 546-2059 Fax (915) 533-5520 Victims Assistance (915) 546-2091 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 1 of 58
political nature and recent focus of the case, I am considering asking for the assistance of 

the Attorney General of Texas in the prosecution and handling of this case. Finally, I 

would want all parties to know that my administration has always and will always 

continue to hold the Honorable Judge Guaderrama in the highest regards. 

Sincerely, 

Yvonne Rosales 

34th Judicial District Attorney 

CC: The Honorable Judge David Guaderrama 

Attorney General Merrick Garland 

The Honorable Governor Greg Abbott 

U.S. Attorney Ashley Chapman Hoff 

United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit 

The Honorable Judge Stephen Ables 

Defense Counsel Joe Spencer 

El Paso County Courthouse 500 East San Antonio Street, 2nd Floor 

El Paso, Texas 79901-2420. (915) 546-2059 Fax (915) 533-5520 'Victims Assistance (915) 546-2091 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 2 of 58
El Paso County - 409th District Court 

IN THE 409TH DISTRICT COURT 

EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS 

Filed 9/9/2022 1:04 PM 

NORMA FAVELA BARCELEAU 

District Clerk 

El Paso County 

20200D02631 

CAUSE No. 20200D0263 1 

STATE'S MOTION TO RECUSE 

THE HONORABLE JUDGE SAM MEDRANO 

Comes now, Movant, the State of Texas, by the undersigned Assistant District 

Attorney for the 34th Judicial District, pursuant to rules 1 8a and 1 8b of the Texas 

Rules of Civil Procedure and files this, the State's motion to recuse the Honorable 

Sam Medrano, and would show the Honorable Court as follows: 

I. APPLICABLE LAW 

Rule 18b(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a judge 

must recuse himself in any proceeding in which". . . the judge's impartiality 

might reasonably be questioned." See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b(b)(1). In determining 

whether recusal is required, "the proper inquiry is whether a reasonable member of 

the public at large, knowing all the facts in the public domain concerning the judge 

and the case, would have a reasonable doubt that the judge is actually impartial." 

See Fuelberg v. State, 410 S.W.3d 498, 509 (Tex.App.Austin 2013, no pet.), 

quoting Ex Parte Ellis, 275 S.W.3d 109, 115-17 (Tex.App.Austin 2008, no pet.); 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 3 of 58
see also Kniatt v. State, 239 S.W.3d 910, 915 (Tex.App.Waco 2007, no pet.). 

The standard is an objective one that focuses not on the judge's subjective state of 

mind and beliefs about whether he can be fair and impartial, but instead asks 

whether a reasonable person would doubt that the judge could remain impartial 

under the circumstances. See Fuelberg, 410 S.W.3d at 509-10. 

"Because this test requires courts to evaluate a motion to recuse from a 

disinterested observer's point of view, it seems best suited to achieve the primary 

purpose of Rule 1 8b(2)(a) [prior version of Rule 1 8b(b)( 1)]: avoiding the 

appearance ofjudicial bias." See Rogers v. Bradley, 909 S.W.2d 872, 873 (Tex. 

1995) (Enoch, J. responding to Gammage, J.'s "Declaration of Recusal"). As the 

Austin Court of Appeals has explained, ". . . recusal is concerned not only with 

actual personal or pecuniary interests, but also the appearance of impartiality when 

all factors are reviewed as a whole." See Fuelberg410 S.W.3d at 509, citing 

Rogers, 909 S.W.2d at 873 ("Declaration of Recusal by Gammage, J.) (noting that 

the issue is one of perception.) 

II. BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE 

The undersigned Assistant District Attorney is Senior Division Chief for the 

Office of the District Attorney for the 34th Judicial District of Texas. The 

undersigned has been tasked with stating what is set out below based on his 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 4 of 58
personal knowledge and information and belief regarding the events related. 

Where his understanding of events is based on information and belief, the basis for 

that belief will be specifically stated parenthetically. 

III. BACKGROUND 

Defendant Patrick Crusius stands charged by indictment herein with one 

count of Capital Murder of Multiple Persons and 22 counts of Aggravated Assault 

with a Deadly Weapon, alleged to have occurred on or about August 3, 2019 in El 

Paso County, Texas. All told, 23 people are alleged to have been killed in the 

capital murder count of the indictment. These allegations are commonly referred to 

as the "Walmart shooting." The defendant was arraigned on these charges on 

October 10, 2019. 

On or about November 7, 2019, before newly-elected District Attorney 

Yvonne Rosales had taken office, Judge Medrano held a hearing herein (which the 

undersigned watched via video as it occurred). At that hearing it was presented to 

the Court that Assistant District Attorney John Briggs would be lead attorney for 

the State of Texas on this case. Judge Medrano eventually stated that he would 

begin setting further hearings in this case shortly after the beginning of 2022. 

At the beginning of 2021, Yvonne Rosales was sworn in as District Attorney 

for the 34th Judicial District of Texas. Almost immediately, Judge Medrano 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 5 of 58
expressed dissatisfaction with Ms. Rosales' personnel assignments to his court. 

The personnel changes that accompanied the change of administration resulted in 

the assignment of a completely different set of prosecutors to the 409th District 

Court than had been assigned under the administration of the previous District 

Attorney. Judge Medrano was dissatisfied enough with these changes that he 

eventually requested and received a completely different set of prosecutors than 

had been assigned at first to his court by District Attorney Rosales. (The 

undersigned has personal knowledge of this via conversations with Judge 

Medrano. The tone of these conversations left the undersigned with the perception 

that Judge Medrano felt disrespected by District Attorney Rosales in regard to the 

assignment of prosecutors to his court.) 

After District Attorney Rosales took office, Assistant District Attorney John 

Briggs was specifically tasked by the undersigned, via Mr. Briggs' direct 

supervisor, Division Chief Scott Ferguson, with spending "90% of his time" 

working on the two death penalty cases to which he was assigned, one of which 

was this case. 

2021 was a pandemic year, and it was believed that work was proceeding 

apace on this case, particularly as no trials were being scheduled by the courts. 

(The undersigned's knowledge and belief as to this point is based on discussions 

4 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 6 of 58
with Division Chief Ferguson related to Chief Ferguson's inquiries regarding the 

status of this case.) 

The beginning of 2022 came and went, with no court settings whatsoever 

being scheduled herein by Judge Medrano. Assurances continued to be made by 

ADA Briggs that work was proceeding apace on this case. Given ADA Briggs' 

level of experience with murder and capital murder cases, it was believed that he 

was performing in accordance with his proven level of ability. (The undersigned's 

knowledge and belief is based on discussions with Division Chief Ferguson 

regarding Chief Ferguson's inquiries about this case.) 

In May of 2022, District Attorney Rosales secured a grant from the office of 

Texas Governor Greg Abbott for $3 million in order that the expense of this case 

be borne by the State of Texas as a whole, rather than the County of El Paso alone. 

(The undersigned was involved in presenting this grant for approval by the County 

Commissioners of the County of El Paso, Texas.) 

On or about June 24, 2022, the Honorable Judge David Guadarrama 

scheduled a trial date of January 8, 2024 in the federal criminal case against the 

defendant herein. As of that date, there had still been no hearings whatsoever 

scheduled by Judge Medrano in the state case since November 7, 2019. 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 7 of 58
On or about June 27, 2022, District Attorney Rosales, in a statement 

regarding scheduling, as opposed to any facts in the case, stated to certain media 

outlets that "we hope to have our case proceed to trial by the summer of 2023." 

On June 28, 2022, this Court scheduled the first hearing to be held in this 

case since November 7, 2019. This new hearing was scheduled for July 1, 2022 at 

11:00 am, and was styled as a "Status Hearing." 

On July 1, 2022, Judge Medrano convened the "Status Hearing" at 11:00 am 

as scheduled. However, he had already filed an "Order Restraining Parties from 

Making Extrajudicial Statements (Gag Order)" ten minutes before the hearing 

commenced, as evidenced by the District Clerk's timestamp on the document. (A 

copy of this Order is attached hereto.) This early filing of the Order meant that 

neither the parties to the case, nor the extensive number of other individuals 

claimed to be subject to the Order, were offered any chance to be heard on any 

aspect related to it before the Order was entered into the record by the Court. 

Another highly irregular deviation from standard practice in the course of 

this "Status Hearing" was that a large collection of local journalists were 

positioned, not only inside the courtroom, but actually in the jury box itself. It is a 

reasonable inference that this occurred with the permission of, if not at the 

invitation of, the Court, given that the Court controls access to the courtroom. 

6 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 8 of 58
(The undersigned's basis for information and belief as to this hearing is a 

combination of a reading of the complete transcript of the hearing; a review of 

numerous media reports about the hearing, including the media's descriptions and 

characterizations of the tone and demeanor evidenced by Judge Medrano, as well 

as the camera angles of photographs taken during the hearing; and interviews 

conducted with witnesses to the hearing by the undersigned as a result of later 

directives by Judge Medrano to the undersigned for the collection of certain pieces 

of information sought by the court. The undersigned will note that, in the 

approximately 15 years that the undersigned has practiced criminal law in the 

District Courts of El Paso County. Texas, the undersigned has never once seen any 

member of the media be allowed to sit in the jury box during any hearing in any 

court. However, it is known to have happened at this hearing.) 

Once the "Status Hearing" was commenced, Judge Medrano immediately 

began to direct questions at District Attorney Rosales, who was seated at counsel 

table for the State. These questions included an exploration at some length as to 

the level of readiness by the State in regard to any eventual trial of the case. All of 

these questions were directed solely to District Attorney Rosales, even though 

Judge Medrano had known since November 7, 2019 that ADA John Briggs, who 

was seated next to DA Rosales at counsel table during the hearing, was assigned as 

7 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 9 of 58
lead counsel for the State on the case and was therefore tasked with overseeing 

preparation of the case for trial. Mr. Briggs was apparently asked no questions at 

all during the course of the hearing, nor did Mr. Briggs either assist in answering 

the questions, or volunteer any answer himself. As Mr. Briggs had been in 

discussions with Judge Medrano in chambers within a few days prior to this 

hearing, along with the defense attorneys on this case, it is a reasonable deduction 

from the evidence that Judge Medrano could have asked him those questions and 

gotten an answer directly from the person who was charged with such knowledge. 

(The undersigned's basis for information and belief as to the questions asked is 

gleaned from the transcript of the hearing and from representations by John Briggs 

and others regarding the discussions.) 

Additionally, it is of note that while the Court expressly stated, in an 

accusatory manner, that the State had apparently entered no filings into the record, 

no such filings were as yet required, given that the Court had failed to issue any 

scheduling order or filing deadlines whatsoever. 

Other questions asked by Judge Medrano of DA Rosales included an 

exploration of her level of understanding of the amount of time involved in the 

individualized voir dire that is a factor under Texas law in any death penalty case. 

These questions were directed solely at her, even though Judge Medrano likely had 

8 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 10 of 58
an awareness that DA Rosales had never worked on a death penalty case. Judge 

Medrano could easily have asked these questions of ADA Briggs, who he likely 

knew had capital murder case experience and who was seated directly next to DA 

Rosales. It is a reasonable inference from these events that Judge Medrano's 

intention was not to actually gather information, but was instead to embarrass DA 

Rosales in front of the members of the media who had been allowed to assemble in 

the jury box. 

Judge Medrano further expressed concerns regarding the extent of media 

coverage generated by the parties and others exercising their First Amendment 

rights by communicating with the media regarding this case. These concerns were 

directed solely at DA Rosales, and were expressed in an emphatic fashion in front 

of the large collection of members of the media who had been allowed to situate 

themselves in the jury box. These concerns were expressed even though the Gag 

Order entered into the record before the hearing included a statement that "pre-trial 

publicity will interfere with the Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial 

jury." Since these concerns could have been expressed in chambers with the 

parties present but without the attendance of the media, it is a reasonable inference 

that the actual purpose of Judge Medrano was to generate media coverage rather 

than limit it. (The undersigned's basis for information and belief as to the tone and 

9 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 11 of 58
demeanor of Judge Medrano arises from a review of numerous media reports of the 

hearing, as well as interviews by the undersigned with witnesses to the hearing 

itself. The judge's tone and demeanor is described in at least one media report as 

"clearly angry." Judge Medrano is also described as having "repeatedly criticized" 

DA Rosales. All of these media reports are a result of the decision by the Court to 

hold the hearing in front of the media assembled in the jury box. Furthermore, as 

is evidenced by previous and subsequent events, meetings in chambers between the 

Court and counsel, off the record and without media presence, have certainly 

occurred in the course of this case.) 

Judge Medrano also queried DA Rosales regarding the grant secured from 

the Office of the Governor, primarily by making the statement that DA Rosales' 

decision to "hire out-of-town lawyers that will be prosecuting this case" was "the 

worst-kept secret in the legal community." This is not so much a request for 

information as it is a statement made in front of the assembled media. By the 

terms of its phrasing, it communicates ridicule of DA Rosales' decision-making in 

regard to personnel matters, combined with an insinuation that lawyers who are not 

from El Paso are somehow inappropriate for the handling of this case. This 

statement was directed at DA Rosales despite the fact that lead counsel for the 

defense, attorney Mark Stephens, is not from El Paso but instead resides in San 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 12 of 58
Antonio, Texas. (The undersigned's basis for information and belief as to these 

specific events comes from the transcript of the hearing, as well as a review of 

numerous media reports.) 

DA Rosales was clearly at a disadvantage during this questioning, having 

had no warning of the subject matter of the "Status Hearing," including the fact 

that the title of the hearing was apparently designed to be obscure. The defense, on 

the contrary, apparently read from a careftilly-prepared statement when given the 

chance to present remarks to the Court. (The undersigned's information and belief 

as to these events is based on a review of the media coverage, including the photos 

and videos related thereto.) 

Judge Medrano then stated, "Never in my 26 years on the bench have I had 

to resort to the order that I have this morning entered in this case," despite the fact 

that the only claimed statement to the media was that the State HOPED to be ready 

for trial by the summer of 2023, which absolutely does not rise to the level of a 

statement designed to affect jurors in a case. 

The hearing concluded with a statement by Judge Medrano that, "The 

grandstanding ends today." It is a reasonable inference that this statement was 

intended to be the last word to the media. 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 13 of 58
It is worthy of note that the previous District Attorney, Jaime Esparza, 

repeatedly made statements about this case to the media, statements which related 

various aspects of the facts of the case, without ever drawing the ire of Judge 

Medrano. 

On September 12, 2019, Esparza confirmed to the El Paso Times that a 

family member was a victim and witness to the incident. He went on to comment 

on her mental anguish, that he did not believe his relation to his relative was a 

conflict of interest, and discussed mental health issues of the victims, that there 

might be a change of venue, and the potential cost to the community. (The 

undersigned's basis for information and belief is his memory of these statements 

combined with recent research.) 

On October 26, 2019, Jaime Esparza gave an interview to local reporter 

Angel Kocherga about prosecuting the Walmart case and the impact on the 

community. (The undersigned's basis for information and belief is his memory of 

this interview combined with recent research.) 

On February 25, 2020, Jaime Esparza gave an interview to the Texas 

Tribune and other members of the media, including television station KTSM. He 

stated he was not willing to transfer the case to the federal government, that 

funding should not be a "barrier," and that he was willing to prosecute the case. 

12 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 14 of 58
He stated, "If you're going to take 22 lives from us, plus the 26 that you injured 

and all the people that you've hurt. . . El Paso is up to the task." (The 

undersigned's basis for information and belief is his memory of these statements 

combined with recent research.) 

Judge Medrano did not find any of these statements to the press worthy of 

any action whatsoever, much less the issuance of a gag order, even though they are 

far more extensive than any statement ever made to the press by District Attorney 

Rosales. 

Subsequent to the July Pt "Status Hearing," on August 3, 2022, attorney 

Amanda Enriquez, who had previously been assigned as a prosecutor on the 

Walmart shooting case under the administration of the previous District Attorney, 

gave an interview to the media in which she expressed opinions about the case. 

The Court thereafter evidenced no concern about this interview in relation to the 

Gag Order. (The undersigned watched excerpts from this interview on television 

news.) 

On August 4, 2022, multiple local media outlets received an email 

originating from an email account linked to Rosa Maria Valdez, mother of the 

biological children of Walmart shooting victim Alexander Hoffmann. This email 

expressed concerns that Amanda Enriquez, who had been identified by the media 

13 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 15 of 58
as a potential candidate for District Attorney in the next election cycle, was using 

the Walmart shooting case for political purposes. The email represented that it had 

been written by Alexander Hoffmann Valdez, one of Alexander Hoffmann' s 

children. (The undersigned knows of only certain parts of the contents of this 

email, from reporting by local media.) 

On August 12, 2022, the Court scheduled another "Status Hearing." This 

hearing was scheduled for August 18, 2022. In preparation for that day, the 

attorneys for the parties, including the undersigned, were summoned to an off-therecord meeting with the Court in the court's chambers. At this meeting, the State 

was verbally ordered to provide the Court with certain information related to 

events following the "Status Hearing" on July 1, 2022. This information 

effectively constituted the beginning of an investigation. Specifically, among other 

things, the State was ordered to identify who, if anyone, had spoken to the victims 

and the families of the deceased after the hearing on July 1, 2022, as well as the 

names of Victims Assistance personnel who had accompanied the victims and 

families of the deceased at the July 1 hearing. The State was also asked by the 

Court to contact the Hoffmann family and request their attendance at the hearing 

scheduled for August 18, 2022. The Court expressed an interest in simply making 

certain that the Hoffhianns clearly understood the terms of the Gag Order. 

14 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 16 of 58
The State in fact complied with the order to provide information, at first 

verbally while in chambers during the off-the-record meeting, and then in writing 

the following day, following an admonishment via email from the Court for a 

failure to timely comply with the Court's verbal, unrecorded order to provide the 

information in writing. 

Before the August 18th "Status Hearing" took place, however, the Court 

again held a meeting with counsel for the parties, off-the-record and in chambers. 

At this meeting the State informed the Court that it had so far been unsuccessful in 

making contact with the Hoffman family. The Court then decided that it would 

instead appoint counsel to represent the HoffInann family, with a reference being 

made to the potential danger that one of them might somehow incriminate 

themselves in regard to the Gag Order. This concern seemed strange to the 

undersigned in light of the Court's previously expressed intention to simply make 

certain that the Hoffmanns understood the precise terms of the Gag Order. 

The State agreed to file a motion for continuance of the August 18 hearing, 

on grounds that it had so far been unable to make contact with the Hoffmann 

family. This motion was filed by the undersigned on August 17, 2022, and was 

granted on that date by the Court. 

15 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 17 of 58
On that same day, Justin Underwood, attorney at law, was sua sponte 

appointed by the Court to represent the Hoffman family "in any future proceeding 

that may arise in this cause." Justin Underwood is a known critic of Yvonne 

Rosales, who has made statements hostile to her administration previous to this 

appointment. The Court neither solicited nor accepted any input as to the choice of 

attorney from either of the parties, going so far as to state that he would not accept 

input from the parties. Mr. Underwood's appointment was entirely of the Court's 

own choosing. 

Subsequently, attorney Underwood contacted the undersigned by telephone 

and requested contact information from the State's files for the Hoffmann family. 

He stated that his only intention was to "protect" the Hoffmann family to the best 

of his ability, and that he was confident that the entire episode would turn out to be 

a "learning experience" for all involved. These statements seemed innocuous 

enough at that time to the undersigned, who agreed to provide the contact 

information as a courtesy, despite not having been ordered to do so by the Court. 

However, on that same afternoon, before the contact information could be 

provided, attorney Underwood also contacted Division Chief Scott Ferguson by 

telephone. The tone of this conversation was decidedly different. Mr. Underwood 

emphatically indicated to Chief Ferguson (who was his old friend and trial partner 

16 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 18 of 58
from Underwood's tenure at the District Attorney's Office years before) that he 

suspected that the email had been written, not by the Hoffmanns, but by one or 

more other people, and that he intended to investigate that. It is unquestionable 

that such an investigation would be outside the scope of the appointment according 

to the order appointing Mr. Underwood. Regardless, the fact that Judge Medrano 

subsequently scheduled a further hearing, apparently to facilitate such an 

extrajudicial investigation, demonstrates Judge Medrano's bias in this case. (The 

undersigned's information and belief for these events is based in conversations 

with Chief Ferguson.) 

Given the emphatic nature of Mr. Underwood's communication with Chief 

Ferguson, any thought of providing the Hoffmann's contact information as a 

courtesy was discontinued, since it was unclear in what maimer Mr. Underwood 

might choose to engage the Hoffmanns, and since it was beginning to appear that 

Mr. Underwood might have different motivations in regard to the Court's 

appointment beyond simply representing the best interests Hoffmann family. (It 

should be noted that the Court has to date still never ordered the State to provide 

any information to Mr. Underwood.) 

On August 23, 2022, the Court and the Office of the District Attorney both 

received an email from Jose Morales, stating that his law firm in Mexico represents 

17 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 19 of 58
the Hoffmann family, and that they rejected the representation of Mr. Underwood. 

(A copy of this email is attached to the State's Motion to Quash Mr. Underwood's 

subsequent subpoenas, and a copy of that Motion is attached hereto.) 

Despite the fact that there was now a question regarding the status of Mr. 

Underwood's representation and his ability to ethically continue to represent 

clients who had purportedly rejected his representation, the Court took no action. 

Subsequently, Mr. Underwood was observed communicating with a local 

journalist on social media, advocating for the filing of a Petition to remove DA 

Rosales. He thereafter was heard being interviewed on radio station KLAQ, 

advocating for an end to Ms. Rosales' tenure in office as District Attorney. It was 

known to the undersigned that Mr. Underwood was distressed by the fact that a 

decrease in case filings by the District Attorney's Office had negatively impacted 

his income by decreasing the number of new clients seeking legal representation. 

(The basis of the undersigned's information and belief regarding these events is a 

combination of personal knowledge from previous conversations with Mr. 

Underwood, along with conversations with witnesses to the events.) 

Despite these occurrences, most of which appear to have taken place in 

public view, the Court took no action until August 30, 2022. 

18 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 20 of 58
On August 30, 2022, the Court scheduled yet another "Status Hearing." 

This hearing was scheduled for September 13, 2022. The purpose of the hearing is 

undiscernible from the title of the hearing. 

Subsequently, on September 6, 2022, Mr. Underwood caused to be issued 

three subpoenas for the hearing on September 13. The persons subpoenaed are 

District Attorney Yvonne Rosales, Judge Roger Rodriguez, and former ADA John 

Briggs. Mr. Underwood sought and received issuance of these subpoenas despite 

lacking any legitimate legal standing or basis to do so in this criminal case, given 

that he is not the defendant, an attorney for the defendant, or an attorney for the 

State herein. (The full substance of the State's objections to these subpoenas is 

memorialized in the State's Motion to Quash, a copy of which is attached hereto.) 

Despite the absolute lack of any lawful standing on Mr. Underwood's part to 

effect the issuance of subpoenas in this case, the subpoenas have in fact been 

issued, service of those subpoenas is being pursued, and the Court continues to 

take no action. 

The State now files this Motion to Recuse the Honorable Sam Medrano. 

IV. ARGUMENT 

The sequence of the aforesaid events demonstrates that it is a reasonable 

inference that Judge Medrano developed a personal animus against DA Rosales at 

I 9 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 21 of 58
some point in time prior to the present, perhaps as early as near the beginning of 

her current term in office. It is also a reasonable inference that he subsequently felt 

provoked by her innocuous statement (made via the exercise of her First 

Amendment right to free speech) that she "hoped" this case would go to trial in the 

summer of 2023. It is furthermore a reasonable inference that Judge Medrano then 

proceeded to devise methods by which he sought to impugn her in the public's 

perception. 

The Gag Order is a case in point. In entering the gag order ten minutes 

before the hearing, without taking any input from or allowing any objections by the 

parties, Judge Medrano blatantly disregarded the law. 

Davenport v. Garcia, 843 S. W2d 4 (Tex. 1992) sets out the current law 

regarding gag orders. Davenport explains that the Texas Constitution gives greater 

protection for the freedom of speech than does the U.S. Constitution. The 

Supreme Court went on to explain, setting the standard: 

Since the dimensions of our constitutionally guaranteed 

liberties are continually evolving, today we build on our 

prior decisions by affirming that a prior restraint on 

expression is presumptively unconstitutional. With this 

concept in mind, we adopt the following test: a gag order 

in civil judicial proceedings will withstand constitutional 

scrutiny only where there are specific findings supported 

by evidence that (1) an imminent and irreparable harm to 

the judicial process will deprive litigants of a just 

resolution of their dispute, and (2) the judicial action 

2() 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 22 of 58
represents the least restrictive means to prevent that harm. 

Davenport has been held to apply to criminal cases as well as to civil cases. 

In Re Graves, 217 S.W.3d 744 (Tex.App.Waco 2007); San Antonio Express 

News v. Roman, 861 S.W.2d 265, 267-68 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993). 

Under Davenport, the judge must make "specific findings supported by 

evidence." Davenport, 834 S.W.2d at 10; Marketshare Telecom, 198 S.W.3d at 

917; accord Grigsby v. Coker, 904 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Tex.1995) (orig.proceeding) 

(per curiam); Tex. Mut. Ins. Co., 156 S.W.3d at 129; Brammer, 114 S.W.3d at 107. 

In Davenport, the court set out the deficiencies which were found in that gag order: 

The orders fail to identify any miscommunication that the 

trial court may have perceived, does not indicate any 

specific, imminent harm to the litigation, and offers no 

explanation of why such harm could not be sufficiently 

cured by remedial action. For instance, had any 

miscommunication stemmed from improper statements 

by Relator, as implied by the court, the proper response 

may have been to sanction her conduct. By stopping not 

only the purported miscommunications 

but any communications, the broadly worded injunction 

certainly fails the second part of our test. 

Davenport, 834 S.W.2d at 11. 

The Trial court in Graves found similar failings in the gag order that the 

court therein was addressing. "In similar fashion, Respondent failed to make 

'specific findings' detailing the nature or extent of the pretrial publicity in Graves's 

21 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 23 of 58
case or how the pretrial publicity or the record from his prior prosecution will 

impact the right to a fair and impartial jury." Gravesl, Supra,, at 762-753, Also, 

See Grigsby, 904 S.W.2d at 620: Davenport, 834 S.W.2d at 11; Marketshare 

Telecom, 198 S.W.3d at 918; Markel v. World Flight, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 74, 79-80 

(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ); Low v. King, 867 S.W.2d 141, 142 

(Tex.App.-Beaumont 1993, orig. proceeding); San Antonio ExpressNews, 861 

S.W.2d at 268; cf Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co., 64 S.W.3d at 108. 

In the above-captioned action, Judge Medrano entered the Gag Order ten 

minutes before the July 1, 2022 hearing even began. No evidence was taken 

regarding pre-trial publicity prior to the entry of the Gag Order, nor was there any 

evidence presented at the hearing itself. No finding based on adduced evidence 

established that there had been any actual miscommunication, nor was there shown 

any actual harm that occurred. And there was no hearing regarding less restrictive 

means of addressing any harmful pre-trial publicity. 

Instead, Judge Medrano recited in his Gag Order that "The Court takes 

judicial notice of: 1) the unusually emotional nature of the issues involved in this 

case; 2) the extensive local and national media coverage this case has already 

generated; and 3) the various and numerous media interviews with counsel for the 

parties that have been published and broadcast by local and national media." 

22 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 24 of 58
A trial court has the discretion to take judicial notice of adjudicative 

facts sua sponte. See TEX.R. EVID. 201(c). However, "[a] party is entitled upon 

timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial 

notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the 

request may be made after judicial notice has been taken." Id. 201(e). 

A judicially-noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in 

that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial 

court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. TEX.R.EVID. 201(b). Judicial notice 

is an exception to the normal requirement of proof, which must be justified by a 

"high degree of indisputability." Garza v. State, 996 S.W.2d 276, 279-80 

(Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, pet. ref d). 

Judicial notice of pretrial publicity may occasionally be appropriate. In re 

Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co., 64 S.W.3d 103, 105 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th 

Dist.1 2001). However, that is not the case when the parties are not given the 

opportunity to be heard or to present evidence to the contrary. Graves, Supra. 

There was, in this case, of course no opportunity for any party to be heard or 

any objection to be made prior to Judge Medrano taking such judicial notice, nor 

prior to his making findings thereon, because the Gag Order had already been 

23 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 25 of 58
issued before the hearing even began. 

Certainly, the "various and numerous media interviews with counsel for the 

parties that have been published and broadcast by local and national media" are not 

facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute in that they are either (1) generally 

known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate 

and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned. 

Indeed, without a hearing in which evidence could be presented, there was 

not even a statement or finding regarding whether any of the parties had given 

interviews, nor how many had been given nor whether any statements of the 

parties regarding the facts of the case were actually made or reported on. 

In Graves, supra, at 752-753, the court held, as the basis for its ultimate 

holding that the gag order in that case was improper, "Respondent failed to make 

'specific findings' detailing the nature or extent of the pretrial publicity in Graves's 

case or how the pretrial publicity or the record from his prior prosecution will 

impact the right to a fair and impartial jury." Likewise, in this case, Judge 

Medrano failed to make specific findings detailing the nature or extent of the 

pretrial publicity, or how pretrial publicity would impact the right to a fair and 

impartial jury. 

24 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 26 of 58
Instead, the Court made a finding that "Counsels' willingness to give 

interviews to the media would only serve to increase the volume of pre-trial 

publicity." Yet there is no finding that any counsel had given interviews to the 

media. No evidence was produced that any party had actually given interviews to 

the media, nor was the State allowed to produce evidence that the one extrajudicial 

statement which apparently gave rise to this finding by the Court was not an 

interview, but rather was a simple statement that the Stated hoped the case could 

begin trial by the summer of 2023. 

The next finding by the Court was that "if Counsel for the parties continue to 

graTit interviews to the media, the pre-trial publicity will interfere with the 

Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury." Even if those facts of which 

judicial notice was taken by the Court were properly taken notice of, there was 

certainly no evidence of how that pre-trial publicity might interfere with the 

Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. 

The court further entered a finding that "no less restrictive alternative means 

exist to treat the specific threat to the judicial process generated by this pre-trial 

publicity," without taking any evidence regarding less-restrictive alternative 

means; nor were any of the parties to be bound by said order allowed to present 

any evidence to the court. 

25 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 27 of 58
Finally, the Court found that "an Order restricting extra-judicial commentary 

by Counsel for the parties is necessary to preserve all venue options and a delay in 

proceedings would not lessen the publicity generated by this case." Once again, 

there was no evidence regarding the need to preserve all venue options or why this 

order would actually be necessary to do so. And there was no evidence regarding 

how a delay in proceedings would not lessen the publicity generated by this case. 

There is little question that Judge Medrano is a knowledgeable and erudite 

jurist, who must have been aware of these points of law. Therefore, the clear 

deficiencies in the procedure and substance of the Gag Order demonstrate a 

reasonable inference that its purpose was not as stated, but rather was that it be 

used as a tool to impugn DA Rosales instead. 

Furthermore, Judge Medrano's statements as he was berating DA Rosales 

demonstrate a reasonable inference that his motivations were to embarrass and 

demean her, rather than to actually address any pre-trial publicity that may have 

occurred. 

It should further be noted that the only hearings scheduled in this case since 

November 7, 2019 have all been focused on the Gag Order and possible violations 

of the Gag Order. The subpoenas unlawfully issued by Mr. Underwood for the 

26 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 28 of 58
"Status Hearing" currently scheduled for September 13, 2022 demonstrate that this 

hearing also is intended to have such a focus. 

The triggering event for this motion was the unlawful issuance of subpoenas 

by Mr. Underwood on September 6, 2022, and therefore this motion is timely. 

(That event itself occurred less than 10 days before the next scheduled hearing in 

this case, so that limitation should not apply, and this motion is being filed as soon 

as practicable after the triggering event, given the length of the motion and the time 

involved in drafting it.) By sua sponte choosing and appointing Mr. Underwood 

(who, rather than simply representing his appointed clients when and as the need 

arose, instead proceeded to institute an extrajudicial investigation, and who 

continued with that investigation even after his representation was apparently 

rejected by the appointed clients), Judge Medrano himself set in motion that 

extrajudicial investigation. And since this investigation is being pursued by an 

attorney who has publicly expressed support for the removal from office of DA 

Rosales, it creates a reasonable inference that it has no purpose other than 

facilitating such a design. Therefore, any reasonable person would doubt that 

Judge Medrano could remain impartial under such circumstances. See Fuelberg, 

410 S.W.3d at 509-10. 

The State is requesting a hearing on its motion pursuant to rule 1 8a(g)(6). 

27 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 29 of 58
V. PRAYER 

Wherefore, the State prays that the Honorable Judge Sam Medrano recuse 

himself from this case, or, in the alternative, that the foregoing motion be referred to 

the Presiding Judge of the Sixth Administrative Judicial Region pursuant to the 

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, that the State's motion to recuse the Honorable 

Judge Sam Medrano from any and all further proceedings in this matter be granted, 

and that the State receive any and all relief to which it may be entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Is! Curtis Cox 

CURTIS COX 

Assistant District Attorney 

State Bar No. 24047797 

500 E. San Antonio Ave., Suite 201 

El Paso, Texas 79901 

Phone: (915) 546-2059 

Fax: (915) 533-5520 

ccoxepcounty.com 

AFFIDAVIT 

I, Curtis Cox, Assistant District Attorney for the 34th Judicial District, State 

of Texas, the movant, in the above-styled cause, attest under oath that, based upon 

my personal knowledge, as well as information and belief, the foregoing 

allegations in the State's Motion to Recuse the Honorable Judge Sam Medrano are 

28 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 30 of 58
true and correct. 

SIGNED under oath before me on September 9, 2022. 

rn NOTAR'!PUBLIC, State of Texas 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was e-filed and 

served on Mark Stevens (marktmarkstevenslaw.com), Joe Spencer 

(Joe@joespencerlaw.com), and Felix Valenzuela (felix@valenzuela-law.com), 

attorneys for Defendant, on September 9, 2022. 

Is! Curtis Cox 

CURTIS COX 

Assistant District Attorney 

29 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 31 of 58
F1LO 

NORftF'' LI 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 

409T11 JUDICIAL DISTRICT227 JUL I AM tO: 50 

EL O.L YTEXAS 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

vs. CAUSE NO. 20200D02631 

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS 

Order Restraining Parties from Making Extrajudicial Statements 

(Gag Order) 

This Court has a duty to preserve the Defendant's right to a fair trial by an 

impartial jury and, if possible, to ensure that potential jurors will not be prejudiced 

by pretrial publicity. The Court is also mindful of the First Amendment rights of 

the parties, Counsel for the parties, the media, as well as the Open Courts Provision 

of the Texas Constitution. In efforts to balance these sometimes competing 

interests, Courts have found that prior restraint may be imposed only in 

extraordinary circumstances, and only if there is the threat of imminent, severe 

harm. Accordingly, before issuing a Gag Order, a Court must find that extensive 

media coverage will harm the judicial process. 

This Court takes judicial notice of: 

1) the unusually emotional nature of the issues involved in this case; 

2) the extensive local and national media coverage this case has already generated; 

and 

3) the various and numerous media interviews with counsel for the parties that 

have been published and broadcast by local and national media. 

The Court FINDS that Counsels' willingness to give interviews to the media 

would only serve to increase the volume of pre-trial publicity, 

The Court FURTHER FINDS that if Counsel for the parties continue to 

grant interviews to the media, the pre-trial publicity will interfere with the 

Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 32 of 58
The Court FURTHER FINDS that no less restrictive alternative means exists 

to treat the specific threat to the judicial process generated by this pre-trial 

publicity. 

The Court FURTI-JER FINDS that an Order restricting extra-judicial 

commentary by Counsel for the partics is necessary to preserve all venue options 

and a delay in proceedings would not lessen the publicity generated by this case. 

Accordingly, in its sound discretion and in light of the relevant facts and 

circumstances of this particular case, the Court ORDERS, ADJUDGES and 

DECREES that prior to and during the trial of this case: 

1. All attorneys involved in this case shall strictly adhere to the letter and spirit of 

the provisions of the Texas Code of Professional Responsibility governing 

comments to the media. Specifically, all attorneys shall refrain from making 

"extrajudicial statements that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated 

by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know 

that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory 

proceeding." TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF'L CONDUCT 3.07. 

2. All attorneys, their staffs, and law enforcement officers involved in this case 

shall not discuss this case with the media. 

3. Witnesses shall not discuss this case with the media when they have previously 

given statements: 

a. to law enforcement personnel, 

b. to representatives of the District Attorney's Office; or 

c. who have testified in investigative or adjudicative proceedings. 

4. Witnesses who give statements to law enforcement personnel, representatives of 

the District Attorney's Office, or who testif' in investigative or adjudicative 

proceedings after the date of entry of this order shall not discuss this case with the 

media. 

5. This Order shall not be interpreted to prohibit attorneys from communicating 

with the parties in order to prepare for trial, nor shall it be interpreted to prohibit 

the third parties from attending any live sessions before the Court or from 

publishing any information they have already obtained or may obtain in the future. 

The term "third parties" includes any person or organization, not a party, not an 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 33 of 58
attorney for a party, or not a person employed by the parties or attorneys for the 

parties for the purpose of assisting in this litigation. 

Nothing in this Order is intended to prevent any person from stating the 

following: 

A factual statement of the Defendant's name or names, age or residence. 

The time and place of the arrest, the identity of the arresting and investigating 

officers and agencies and the length of the investigation. 

The text of the charges, including a brief description of the offense(s) charged. 

Exact quotations from or reference to, without comment, any evidence given to the 

trial jury in this cause. 

The scheduling and result of any stage of the judicial proceeding held in open court 

before the jury or in a public session. 

Nothing in this Order is intended to prevent the Defendant or his attorneys 

from asserting his innocence. 

This Order shall be in force during the pendency of the indictment in the above 

entitled and numbered cause, the trial of said cause, and the discharge of the trial 

jurors from further service in this cause. 

SIGNED this the jday of July, 2022. 

JUDGE SAM MEDEANO, JR. 

409TH DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 34 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

REPORTER'S RECORD 

VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME 

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 20200D02631 

THE STATE OF TEXAS ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

vs. 

EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 

PATRICK WOOD CRtJSIUS 

409TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

STATUS HEARING 

On the 1st day of July, 2022, the following 

proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled 

and numbered cause before the Honorable SAM MEDRANO, 

JR., Judge presiding, held in El Paso, El Paso County, 

Texas: 

Proceedings reported by machine shorthand utilizing 

computer-assisted realtime transcription. 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RN. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

1 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 35 of 58
1 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

APPEARANCES 

YVONNE NICOLETTE ROSALES 

SBOT 24029805 

34th Judicial District Attorney's Office 

500 East San Antonio, Room 201 

El Paso, Texas 79901 

(915) 546-2059 

I ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS 

MARK STEVENS 

SBOT 19184200 

Law Office of Mark Stevens 

310 South Saint Mary's Street, Suite 1920 

San Antonio, Texas 78205-3154 

(210) 226-1433 

JOE AURELIANO SPENCER, JR. 

SBOT 18921800 

Joe A. Spencer Attorney & Counselor at Law 

1009 Montana Avenue 

El Paso, Texas 79902-5411 

(915)532-5562 

FELIX VALENZUELA 

SBOT 24076745 

Valenzuela Law Firm 

P0 Box 26186 

El Paso, Texas 79926-6186 

(915) 209-2719 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RM. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 8348209 

2 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 36 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX 

Status Hearing 

JUNE 1, 2022 PAGE VOL 

Proceedings called to order .................. 4 1 The Court addresses Ms. Rosales .............. 4 1 Response by Ms. Rosales ...................... 4 1 Response by Mr. Spencer ..................... 10 1 Proceedings concluded ....................... 18 1 Court Reporter's Certificate ................ 19 1 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RM. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

3 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 37 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(Open court, defendant not present) 

THE COURT: We are on the record in cause 

number 20200D02631, The State of Texas versus 

Patrick Wood Crusius. The Court has convened the 

lawyers in this case. 

Last week Federal District Judge 

David Guaderrama scheduled the federal Crusius case for 

a trial January 2024. This week the district attorney, 

Yvonne Rosales, issued a statement through the media 

declaring when she wants to try this case. And I believe it was the summer of 2023, approximately, six 

months prior to the beginning of Judge Guaderrama's 

trial. 

Ms. Rosales, why did you do this? 

MS. ROSALES: Your Honor, with all due 

respect, I was asked when we would have this case set 

for trial. I said, "The district attorney does not have 

any power to set settings," and we would be requesting 

and approaching the Court along with opposing counsel to 

request a scheduling order to discuss this case. That 

is what was said to the media. 

THE COURT: Do you believe that's what it 

looked like? 

MS. ROSALES: I don't know what the media 

put out, Your Honor. All I know is that I was asked 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RM. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

4 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 38 of 58
1. 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

when the case was going to go to trial on the State side 

and I did clearly inform them that we were going to be 

approaching the Court along with opposing counsel to 

request a court date. 

THE COURT: They put out your press 

release that said nothing about approaching this Court. 

I've read your press release. It said you want this 

case to go in the summer of 2023. 

MS. ROSALES: Our goal was to have this 

case scheduled before since we are seeking the death 

penalty and the federal court is not seeking the death 

penalty at this point in time. 

THE COURT: You previously sent out a statement through the media when asked when this case 

was going and you indicated that you do not set this 

court's docket, but you invited the media to ask me 

about it. And you did that also in another case 

recently where you indicated, "Please ask questions of 

the court if you have any questions." Are you of the 

opinion that courts are allowed to comment on pending 

matters before them? 

MS. ROSALES: No, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: So why have you done it on at 

least two occasions to include this case? 

MS. ROSALES: What was informed to the 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RM. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

5 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 39 of 58
1 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

media was that we do not set the trial schedules. If 

there is anything pending, then they would have to 

contact the court for scheduling. 

THE COURT: In the fall of 2021, you once 

again went through the media and indicated that your 

office was ready to prosecute this case as soon as it 

was feasible to bring in a large enough panel and not be 

concerned about the Coronavirus and that this case could 

be tried in two weeks. 

MS. ROSALES: I would never indicate this 

case could be handled in two weeks, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: The media misspoke about what 

you said? 

MS. ROSALES: It would appear so. 

THE COURT: Okay. How long if we began 

the trial of this case in the summer of 2023 do you 

anticipate this case taking to be tried? 

MS. ROSALES: We anticipate that it would 

take at least two to three months to actually sit down 

and or for the presentation of evidence. 

THE COURT: Getting to 

MS. ROSALES: Prior to that, we would also 

need at least 60 days to go through individual voir 

dire. 

THE COURT: You think individual voir dire 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RN. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 40 of 58
1 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

can take -- be done in two months? 

MS. ROSALES: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: So that if this did happen 

before Judge Guaderramas scheduled jury trial, the 

defense lawyers would have at least three months to 

prepare for that? 

MS. ROSALES: Absolutely, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: The accused is not here. The 

Court did waive his appearance because he is in the 

county jail under federal custody. 

Are you aware of that? 

MS. ROSALES: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: Are you aware what we need to 

do to have him appear in state court for his state court 

proceedings? 

MS. ROSALES: 

THE COURT: 

make that happen? 

MS. ROSALES: 

Yes, sir. 

What would we need to do to 

We would need to writ him 

back, Your Honor. 

THF COURT: And get the permission of 

Judge Guaderrama. 

MS. ROSALES: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: The record should reflect that 

since your since you took office, not one pleading, 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RM. 459 

EI PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

7 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 41 of 58
1 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

not one motion, not one request, not one business 

record, not one proposed jury questionnaire, not one 

subpoena duces tecum, not one witness list, not one 

expert witness list has been filed by your office. 

MS. ROSALES: Those have been filed. They 

are filed, Your Honor. We do have 

THE COURT: If they were filed, they were 

filed late yesterday because I checked the file. Not 

one. And, Ms. Rosales, with all due respect, the worst 

kept secret in the legal community is that you are 

actively seeking, interviewing and attempting to hire 

out-of-town lawyers that will be prosecuting this case. 

Have you concluded that process? 

MS. ROSALES: We have additional attorneys 

who will be assisting the current staff who are working. 

THE COURT: Have you concluded that 

I process? 

MS. ROSALES: No, sir, we have not. 

THE COURT: So there are currently 

attorneys who will be on this case who are at this point 

are not in your office and have not looked at one piece 

of the evidence in this case? 

MS. ROSALES: No, sir. We decided to have 

an appellate attorney assigned to this case and there is 

no need to have that appellate attorney on on record 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RN. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 42 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

at this point in time. 

THE COURT: And still you have gone 

through the media to indicate you are ready to try this 

case in the summer of 2023? 

MS. ROSALES: I have responded to 

questions that have been posed to me by the media. 

THE COURT: And you did not confer with 

defense counsel before you did that? 

MS. ROSALES: No, sir. 

THE COURT: And you definitely did not 

bring it through this Court. 

MS. ROSALES: We have not had hearings in 

this court, Your Honor, that is correct. 

Again, with all due respect, Your Honor, 

my statements were, "I hope that we can get this case 

tried before or during the summer of 2023." It is -- THE COURT: And the proper I'm sorry. 

MS. ROSALES: I did not indicate that we 

would be following through, but I did say or let me 

rephrase that. I did not say that a trial date was 

scheduled. I never said that this had already been 

established. I said it would be my hope that we could 

have scheduling hearings so that we could have this case 

heard for trial during the summer of 2023 to bring 

resolution to the victims of this case. 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RM. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 43 of 58
1 2 

3 

4 5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

THE COURT: And since you have given 

statements indicating that you are -- that you 

understand that all that goes through this court, can we 

agree that the proper form and venue for those kinds of 

discussions is in this court and not the media with the 

other side involved? 

MS. ROSALES: I did indicate to the media 

that we would have these discussions with opposing 

counsel so that we could check calendars to verify that 

everybody would be available for trial just as we do 

with every other case, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: You would also agree that is 

nowhere in your press statement that was released this 

week? 

MS. ROSALES: I would have to confer, but 

that part of it was probably not in the press statement. 

THE COURT: Mr. Stevens, Mr. Spencer, 

Mr. Valenzuela, why have you not gone through the media 

to let them know when you wish to go to trial? 

MR. SPENCER: Good morning, Your Honor. 

Mark Stevens, Felix Valenzuela, Joe Spencer on behalf of 

Patrick Crusius. We did file a waiver and had signed by 

Mr. Crusius waiving his presence and it was filed this 

morning. 

Your Honor, we are aware that it is 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 H. SAN ANTONIO, RM. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 44 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

against the Rules of Professional Responsibility to 

attempt to influence a jury panel by giving information 

out to the media that could potentially taint the jury 

panel. When Judge Guaderrama set his order on June 24th 

and set it for jury trial, as the Court has stated, it 

was days after that that this press release came out. 

The statement by the district attorney's office is 

entirely unrealistic and very disingenuous to suggest a trial date of the summer of 2023. As the Court pointed 

out, we went back through the docket. This office 

this current administration has not filed one motion, 

one pleading, one affidavit, one subpoena, has been no 

filings whatsoever. 

I heard Ms. Rosales say that she had. I haven't seen it. If it was filed, it is not in the 

district clerk's. We have not received a copy of it. 

In fact, the last filing that was done in this case was 

done by the past administration. That was in the -- that was a business record affidavit in September of 

2020 and a response to our motion in June of 2020 almost 

two years ago. Even the past administration had not 

filed anything, but certainly there is nothing in the 

record that I have seen that this administration has 

filed. 

Mr. Crusius is in federal custody. He has 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RM. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 45 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

defense team about a potential trial date. In making 

the statement out publicly that this district attorney's 

office did, I think they were attempting to usurp the 

Court's duty of picking a trial date that is in 

compliance with due process and the fundamental 

if it is not done properly. 

Judge Guaderrama's order, Your Honor, was 

very carefully crafted. Judge Guaderrama is a very 

experienced judge who has not only tried death penalty 

cases, but has heard them as a judge and has tried them 

as a lawyer. And he states in his order very clearly 

that the government has not made the decision as to the 

authorization, but in setting the trial date when he set 

it in January of 2024, he had to strike a balance. And 

he understands that the criminal justice system that 

rightfully intends to protect the accused in an unjust 

outcome by securing both procedural and substantive 

rights. 

Judge Guaderrama goes on and explains. 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RN. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 46 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

Judge Guaderrama to understand his analysis. "The Fifth 

Amendment due process right to a fair trial and the 

Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of 

counsel, the Constitution mandates that a fair trial be 

done for all criminal defendants." He acknowledges 

that, "This is a complex case. The government spends 

vast sums of money and employs a well-established 

machinery to try a defendant in a crime. The criminal 

defendant must be given a chance to match that." 

Your Honor, there has been over 1.7 

million files of discovery. In each file there could be 

hundreds or thousands of pages. There is a tremendous 

amount of discovery in this case. Judge Guaderrama is 

aware of that. He understands the range and depth of 

the resources that are needed to properly defend this 

case to avoid a retrial, to avoid this case being come 

back, to bring judicial finality. He understands that 

judicial finality is paramount to this community, for 

the victims and for the defendant. 

Once more, Judge Guaderrama explains in 

his order that the defense counsel has a sworn duty to 

investigate exculpatory and mitigating evidence. We 

must. We are mandated by the ABA, by our ethical 

guidelines and by the guidelines that have been set by 

the Supreme Court of what defense counsel must do to 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RN. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 47 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

And the State of 

"It will take time, l Judge Guaderrama 

He says, "It will take a substantial amount of 

So he strikes a date and he takes into account, 

"Mr. Crusius' Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights are 

preserved," and the balance that he must strike with 

respect to bringing judicial finality to this court. 

Judge Guaderrama understands that the 

to be coming in. The jury selection process, 

Your Honor, I have been Mr. Quijano and I were in a death penalty voir dire for 18 months. I -- to hear the 

district attorney's office say that they anticipate voir 

dire in any death penalty case going two months, much 

less a case of this magnitude that occurred on 

August 3rd, it is going to take six to eight months in 

my opinion, in my opinion. And that is with due speed. 

That is just the nature of the case that we have, 

Your Honor. 

Judge Guaderrama says that, "The Court is 

sympathetic to the enormous amount of work that this 

case requires," but he is striking a balance. 

Judge Guaderrama renders his decision not for any 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RH. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 48 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

political reason, Judge, but because he understands that 

he must make sure that this community receives judicial 

finality and avoids the risk of having to do another 

retrial and we go decades and decades of not having 

finality in this case. 

What has been recently in the news, the 

Parkiand shooter case where they just went through 1,800 

jurors to select a jury. And they just selected a jury. 

The Bowers case, which is in Philadelphia, which is the 

synagogue shooting up there, where we had 11 deceased 

individuals, Your Honor, there has been over 1,000 

pleadings filed in that case. We anticipate that there 

is going to be heavy litigation that is going to be 

done. This defense team for the next 18 months is going 

on a fast-track litigation scheme with the federal 

government. There is no way that we can also prepare 

for a state case as well as a federal case. And I would 

think that the district attorney's office would be 

sympathetic. 

The district attorney's office was aware 

that when Judge Guaderrama first writted Patrick Crusius 

over to the federal court where we had the first -- after the indictment and the hearing that we have had in 

federal court several years ago, they were they 

acted they were aware. It was pretty much common 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RM. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 49 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

knowledge that the federal case was going to go first 

before the state case. I would suggest to the Court 

that the district attorney's office agreed with that. 

They certainly by their actions -- and when I say "by 

their actions," by their inactions, of not doing 

anything to try to get Patrick Crusius writted over 

here, have a hearing before the Court, request any sort 

of scheduling conference, request any sort of trial 

date, request any judge's conference, they would have 

done that. They would have writted him over and made 

that request. They didn't do that. They acquiesced to 

the federal government. Well, now Judge Guaderrama has 

given us a timeline. And under his order he has ordered 

us to come up with a scheduling order to prepare for 

this trial. It is impossible for us to have a trial 

date set in this state court. 

So, Judge, all of this is information that 

the lawyers know and that the judges know. The public 

does not know. We make take great pains to avoid a lot of this information to the public so that we don't 

taint a jury pool. It is important that the jurors 

that this community tries this case. It is important 

and the defense from day one has stated, "We believe 

this case needs to be tried in this community. We 

believe this case has to have judicial resolution in 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RN. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 50 of 58
1 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

That 

That is why 

we have not done interviews because we understand it 

could potentially taint the jury pooi. We have an 

ethical obligation to protect our client and to make 

sure that the integrity of the court system is done 

within the canons of ethics and what is required so that 

all parties receive a fair trial and expeditiously as 

possible. 

THE COURT: This Court wants to make it 

perfectly clear that this case is not going to be tried 

in the media, but will be tried in a court of law, in 

this court of law where all of these types of 

discussions should be happening. Never in my 26 years 

on the bench have I had to resort to the order that I have this morning entered in this case. It is an order 

restraining parties from making extrajudicial 

statements, which is commonly known as a gag order. 

Please read my order very carefully because it not only 

applies to the lawyers, but to the people who are 

working with the lawyers or who are aligned with the 

parties. 

This Court has every intention of 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RN. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 51 of 58
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

perfectly clear. This Court continues to prepare for 

the trial of this case, but this Court is not going to 

interfere with the federal trial that has been scheduled 

in January of 2024. The grandstanding ends today. 

Please have a safe and happy 4th of July. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

THE BAILIFF: All rise. 

(Proceedings concluded) 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RM. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 52 of 58
1 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of 

all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested 

in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in 

this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the 

above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred 

in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 

I further certify that this Reporter's Record of 

the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the 

exhibits, if any, offered by the respective parties. 

I further certify that the total cost for the 

preparation of this Reporter's Record is $85.50 and was 

paid/will be paid by El Paso District Attorney's Office. 

WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 14th day of 

July, 2022. 

/s/ Natalie A. Martinez, CSR 

NATALIE MARTINEZ, Texas CSR# 8352 

409th District Court 

El Paso, TX 79901 (915) 834-8209 

Expires: September 30, 2023 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

409TH DISTRICT COURT; 500 E. SAN ANTONIO, RN. 459 

EL PASO, TX 79901 (915) 934-8209 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 53 of 58
El Paso County - 409th District Court Ffted 8/17120222:17 PM 

NORMA FAVELA BARCELEALI 

District Clerk 

El Paso County 20200002631 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 

4O9 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

THE STATE OF TEXAS ) 

) 

) VS. ) No. 20200D02631 

) 

) PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS 

IIli1a)311 

On this day, the Court, sua sponte, has appointed Justin B. 

Underwood, to represent the Hoffman family in any future proceeding 

that may arise in this cause. 

ENTERED this the / 7 day of , 2022 

SAM MEDRANO, JR. 

409TH DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 54 of 58
I I I & El Paso County - 409th District Court 

IN TIlE 409TH DISTRICT COURT 

EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

V. 

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS 

Filed 9/7/2022 11:13AM 

NORMA FAVELA BARCELEAU 

District Clerk 

El Paso County 

20200D02631 

CAUSE No. 20200D0263 1 

STATE'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS 

Comes now the State of Texas, by and through its Assistant District Attorney, 

and files this Motion to quash subpoenas issued herein by Justin Underwood, 

Attorney at Law. The State would show the following: 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The above cause is set for a status hearing on September 13, 2022. No 

evidentiary hearing is set for that day. 

Attorney Justin Underwood was appointed sua sponte on August 17, 2022 by 

Order of this Court as attorney to represent "the Hoffman family in any future 

proceeding that may arise in this cause." 

Thereafter, on August 23, 2022, the Court and the District Attorney's Office 

both received an email communication from Jose Morales, an attorney in Mexico, 

stating that he had been retained by the Hoffman family and that they rejected Mr. 

Underwood's representation in regard to the above-captioned matter. 

Subsequently, on September 6, 2022, Mr. Underwood caused subpoenas to be 

issued for the status hearing on September 13, 2022. Subpoenas were issued for 

John Briggs, District Attorney Yvonne Rosales, and Judge Roger Rodriguez. 

II. ARGUMENTS 

The State respectfully requests that these subpoenas be quashed for the 

following reasons: 

1. Mr. Underwood currently has no standing to subpoena anyone in relation to 

the above-captioned matter, as his appointment and representation have been 

rejected by the Hoffman family, and he therefore cannot ethically represent 

them under the Rules of Professional Conduct. He is therefore improperly 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 55 of 58
I I 

acting under color of representation of a client who has rejected that 

representation. See attached email from Attorney Jose Morales. 

2. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 24.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure, only the defendant or his attorney or the State's attorney may make 

application for the issuance of subpoenas in a criminal case. This is a criminal 

case. Mr. Underwood is not the defendant, nor the defendant's attorney, nor 

the attorney for the State of Texas. Therefore, he is not an entity authorized 

by Article 24.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to seek issuance of 

subpoenas in a criminal case. The subpoenas should be quashed on this 

ground alone. 

3. Additionally, Article 1, Section 30(e) of the Texas Constitution provides, in 

relevant part: "A victim or guardian or legal representative of a victim has 

standing to enforce the rights enumerated in this section but does not have 

standing to participate as a party in a criminal proceeding or to contest the 

disposition of any charge." Thus, Mr. Underwood, who is not even a legal 

representative of a victim, a party, or anyone else in this case, wholly lacks 

standing to request the issuance of subpoenas in the underlying criminal case. 

4. Beyond that, Article 24.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires 

that any application for subpoenas in a criminal case shall state that the 

testimony of said witness is material to the State or to the defense. The 

subpoenas actually issued pursuant to Mr. Underwood's application state that 

the testimony of the witnesses is material to the State. However, since Mr. 

Underwood is not an attorney for the State of Texas in the above-entitled 

cause, this statement of materiality is inherently defective and not in 

accordance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

5. None of the individuals that Mr. Underwood is seeking to subpoena are fact 

witnesses in regard to the allegations in this case. John Briggs was formally 

an Assistant District Attorney assigned to this case. District Attorney Yvonne 

Rosales is the elected District Attorney for the 34" Judicial District of Texas. 

Judge Roger Rodriguez is not a party to this case. There is no material 

testimony that can be obtained from these persons, particularly since the 

scheduled hearing is styled as a status hearing, rather than any sort of 

evidentiary hearing. The subpoenas also fail to comply with the requirements 

of the Code of Criminal Procedure on these grounds. 

6. Rather than representing the Hoffman family, Mr. Underwood is attempting 

to use his sua sponte appointment by the Court, and the agency created 

thereby, to conduct an extrajudicial investigation. It is a reasonable inference 

that the extrajudicial investigation that Mr. Underwood is attempting to 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 56 of 58
engage in via these subpoenas is motivated by some desire other than 

representation of the Hoffman family. 

III. PRAYER 

Wherefore, the State of Texas respectfully requests this Court GRANT its 

motion to quash subpoenas. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Is! Curtis Cox 

CURTIS COX 

Assistant District Attorney 

State Bar No. 24047797 

500 E. San Antonio Ave., Suite 201 

El Paso, Texas 79901 

Phone: (915) 546-2059 

Fax: (915) 533-5520 

ccox@epcounty.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was e-filed and 

served on Mark Stevens (markmarkstevensIaw.com), Joe Spencer 

(Joej oespencerlaw.com), and Felix Valenzuela (fel ix@valenzuela-law.com), 

attorneys for Defendant, and on Justin Underwood (reception@wutrial.com), Attorney 

at Law, on September 7, 2022. 

Is! Curtis Cox 

CURTIS COX 

Assistant District Attorney 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 57 of 58
Curtis Cox 

From: Jose Morales <oserufinomoralesguzrnangmaU.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 4:07 PM 

To: Aracely Gomez <aragpmez@epcounty.com>; El Paso District Attorney <DARosales@epcounty.com> 

Subject: Rejection of Appointed lawyer Justin Underwood 

Some people who received this message dont often get email from joserufinonoi-tesçuzman©grnaiLcom. Learn why this is 

important 

To Judge Medrano: 

My law office represents the Hoffmann family. They have no intention of returning for anymore court proceedings since 

they do not feel safe. I am writing you this letter to let you know the Hoffmann family is aware you appointed a lawyer 

to represent them through a News story. They reject the appointment of this lawyer Justin Underwood, who they know 

to not have theyre best interests. They know this because they made a complaint against you and therefore they know 

any lawyer you picked can only act in retaliation of that complaint. 

Any further act by this lawyer and or the court to antagonize and retaliate against the Hoffmann family will be seen as an extraterritorial act against free and sovereign citizens of the Republic of Mexico and will be reported to the Mexican 

authorities for prosecution. We are Copying the State Comission of Judicial Conduct regarding the above retaliation, and 

also the office of the district attorney. 

Yours truly, 

Jose Morales 

Abogado 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 241 Filed 09/13/22 Page 58 of 58