JUDGE CUFFS ERNIE FOR BLABBING AFTER INVOKING 5TH

By Juan Montoya

We've touched here about the fact that Cameron County Pct. 2 commissioner Ernie Hernandez invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during the November 2013 trial of his administrative assistant Raul Salazar.

Salazar – who also didn't testify – was convicted on two counts of official misconduct and one count of tampering with a government document in the illegal hiring of Roberto Cadriel, Hernandez's brother-in-law. Visiting Judge Federico Hinojosa sentenced him to 10 months in jail and allowed him to be free on bond while he appeals and asks for a new trial.

That his boss the commissioner opted not to testify on his behalf seemed a little strange to court observers at the time. After all, if anyone could exculpate Raul it would have been Ernie, and besides, they both go way back to when Ernie was a City of Brownsville commissioner and Salazar was the fire chief.
That ended up badly because Salazar was convicted of a felony for tampering with a government documents (again) and of stealing from the department's Christmas charity fund for kids.
As with out previous post on Ernie taking the Fifth, however, today's post deals with him telling the local daily that he was "no billed" by the grand jury which indicted Salazar. In fact, as we can tell from the hearing which Hinojosa conducted the day after Hernandez made this claim to the newspaper, no such thing happened and Ernie claimed that he "misspoke." In fact, because he had claimed the Fifth, he had no business making self-serving false statements to the press.
The following is a transcript of the hearing where Hinojosa cuffs him on the ears and sets Hernandez straight.

PROCEEDINGS:

COURT: Mr. (Ed) Cyganiewicz, yesterday you appeared before Court along with your client Ernie Hernandez, and informed me that pursuant  to a subpoena that your client did  not want to testify and , in fact, would be taking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Last night – or should I say this morning – in reading the newspaper I saw that he had made a statement to the newspaper pursuant to his right to remain silent. I want to know why he is doing so, and I'm going to ask that he again take the stand and allow you yo explain that situation...

MR. CYGANIEWICZ:
Q: Mr. Hernandez, there's been some confusion created by statements you made to the Brownsville Herald yesterday, and I've discussed them with you, correct?
A: Correct
Q.: Yesterday you indicated to the Court that upon my advice you were electing to invoke your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; is that correct?
A: That's correct
Q: And I instructed – and we both instructed the Court – that you were doing that because you remain a target of this investigation and that your case is still under investigation; is that correct?
A: There's no doubt in my mind, that's correct.
Q: The State's indicated that yesterday even with some filings and even to the Court that you are remaining a target of this investigation?
A: Yes
Q: So the Court's confused and asking me to clarify this for you because you've indicated to the newspaper that you were taking the Fifth because you don't want to be inconsistent in your statements or didn't want to say anything different than what you had previously stated. Is that a concern of yours, being consistent?
A: Well, on my grand jury testimony to make sure I repeat exactly what I said before, but the real issue is the fact that I feel I'm a target and it's causing, you know, big concerns for myself.
Q: And what's the real issue or what's the reason why you were taking the Fifth or why were you electing to invoke your right to remain silent?
A: The primary reason because I'm a target of this investigation – I feel I'm a target of this investigation.
Q: And the state has indicate that you are a target?
A: Yes, they have.
Q: You are also – if I may lead you to a certain degree –, that you are also concerned that you want to be consistent with your testimony like any other witness; is that right?
A: Of course
Q: But you are telling the Court again that you are invoking your right to remain silent, if you're called as a witness you will take the Fifth, because you remain a a target of the investigation; is that right?
 A: Yes, I will
Q: You feel you are a target?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: I also need to clarify some statements regarding your appearance before the grand jury and indicating to the newspaper that you were what they call no-billed. Did you even know what that meant?
A: No, I didn't. I assumed that's what it was because my administrative assistant was no-billed the same day that I – you know – right after the hearing.
Q: And subsequent to that I've explained to you that you were not no-billed...
A: Yes.
Q...And your case wasn't presented as a case against you but only you were testifying as a witness, correct?
A: No, I honestly misspoke.
Q: Okay. SO you're not saying you were no-billed.
A: That's correct.
Q: And as far as you know or as far as you're concerned, you are still under investigation by the District Attorney's Office or some sort of law enforcement agency regarding this particular incident?
A: Without a doubt.
Q: I'm also going to ask you and the Court is going to probably instruct you that you should not say anything else to the media until  this case is completed.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. Mr. Hernandez, the Court is going to instruct you not to discuss this matter with anyone during the pendency of this trial. Do you understand?
A: Yes, sir. I do.
(Ultimately, Hernandez did not testify in the case and a grand jury indicted him on eight counts of official misconduct for his role in the illegal hiring of his brother-in-law Roberto Cadriel. His administrative assistant Salazar was convicted and sentenced to 10 months in county jail. He is asking for a new trial and is free on  bond. He has since resigned from his county position. Hernandez is running for reelection as county commissioner in the March 4 Democratic primary.)