New here? Start from the beginning…
In July 1999, just after Angel had been convicted of parole violations for smoking marijuana on three separate occasions, he found himself back in the Kandiyohi County Jail where Judge Spilseth had sentenced him to 45 days. By revoking the stay of imposition on Angel’s earlier case of “receiving stolen property/firearms,” the court now recognized Angel as a convicted felon. The good news was—for the time being anyway—the stay of execution on that case was still in place, meaning that the judge had chosen not to execute the full sentence of one year and one day in prison, but instead had imposed a lesser sentence of 45 days in the county jail, with credit for time served and good behavior.
Back at home, Angel’s mother was in a full panic. Angel’s lawyer, Kent Marshall, may have been a brilliant criminal lawyer, but she had no way of knowing it because she couldn’t understand English. All she knew for sure was that Manuel Guerrero from St. Paul had helped her family in the past. He was smart, fair, generous, and bilingual. She was aware that Manuel had refused to represent Angel anymore because of his ongoing association with the Latin Kings, but her son was now facing up to 2 ½ years in prison and Maria Hernandez was desperate. She drove the 100+ miles to meet with Manuel Guerrero at his office in St. Paul and begged him to reconsider.
At that time, Manuel Guerrero was in his final year of teaching law classes at the University of Minnesota and leading the Chicano Latin Studies Department. It would be a transition year for him, and in 2000 he planed to retire from the U to practice criminal law part time, mostly representing Latino people in outstate Minnesota where he felt they weren’t being served adequately.
Side Note
Manuel Guerrero is a bit of a legend in Minnesota legal circles. Throughout his many years of providing pro bono representation for the underserved Latino community, he made a name for himself as a smart, fair, and caring defense lawyer who was respected by judges and prosecutors, alike. He was also known as a sharp dresser, always sporting his trademark silk bow tie and a friendly smile.
Like Angel’s parents, Manuel’s parents were also first-generation Mexican immigrants who wound up in the midwest searching for work. They met in Marion, Indiana and were married in 1930. Manuel’s father worked in a foundry for over 35 years, and the entire family worked in the migrant fields during the summer for extra income. Together, Manuel’s parents raised nine children, always stressing the importance of education, even though neither of them had any formal education beyond third grade.
Manuel and his siblings attended Catholic school in Marion, and all were involved in sports. One day his high school baseball coach asked him what he wanted to be in life. Without putting much thought into it, he answered, “A lawyer.” Even though he didn’t know any lawyers or even have a good grasp on what they did for a living, the answer stuck with him. By the time he was a senior in 1953, his baseball coach managed to put together a scholarship with a few local businessmen so Manuel could afford to go to college.
He was accepted into Notre Dame where he played second base on the baseball team (and also made the basketball team at only 5’ 8” tall). Manuel thrived in college, but when he didn’t have the money to pay for a second year at Notre Dame, he volunteered for the draft so he could continue his education on the G.I. Bill. He served two years in the Army, was accepted into Franklin College of Indiana and graduated in June of 1959, the first in his family.
Manuel went on to obtain his law degree from the Indiana University School of Law, and in 1964—at age 29—he was elected to serve six years as a circuit court judge in Grant County, Indiana. He was the first Latino, the first 29-year-old, and the the first Democrat in a very long time to hold the position.
By 1972, Manuel was married with six kids when he was invited to teach a criminal law class at the University of Minnesota as a visiting professor. A year later, in 1973, he moved the entire family (his wife and six children) to the Crocus Hill neighborhood of St. Paul where he continued to teach at the U and chair the Chicano Studies Department. He would go on to attend Georgetown University to obtain a Masters in Law, and become the founder and first president of the Minnesota Hispanic Bar Association.
Manuel had always been impressed with Angel and his younger brother, Luis. Up until the time their father had been arrested for heroin possession and deported back to Mexico just two years earlier, they’d always stayed out of trouble. He knew the family had struggled since that time, and from his work with other families from the area, he also knew they’d faced racism in Willmar. Given all these factors, he was amazed the boys hadn’t gotten into more trouble than they had. He agreed to help.

By this time, Angel had already been assigned an attorney through the District Public Defender’s Office, a 51-year-old criminal defense lawyer by the name of John Holbrook. Appearing on behalf of the State of Minnesota was 48-year-old Connie Crowell, assistant attorney and lead prosecutor for the Kandiyohi County Attorney’s Office. Crowell and Holbrook were both seasoned attorneys who had been assigned to many of the county’s most serious crimes. Manuel Guerrero would assist John Holbrook on Angel’s case, but Holbrook would be the one addressing the court and leading the defense at trial.
Just to recap a bit, Minnesota’s add-on charge of “crime committed for the benefit of a gang” was enacted by the legislature in 1991 to address the state’s growing problem with criminal gangs. It was believed that gang-related crimes were considered more serious and deserved a greater penalty because of the impact on the victim and the community.
The problem was that proving a crime had been committed for the benefit of a gang was turning out to be increasingly complicated. Prosecutors faced additional time and research to build their cases, while equal rights advocates questioned whether the law was even constitutional. Recent statistics from the Minnesota Gang Strike Force indicated that, of the 1,025 confirmed gang members in Minnesota, at least 70% were racial minorities. In addition, statistics from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission indicated that of the 39 persons convicted of a “crime committed for benefit of a gang,” at least 35 were racial minorities.
So, while the 1991 statute was originally intended as a deterrent for would-be gang members, the learning curve had been steep for prosecutors who had an added burden of proof to convict on all charges. For that reason, “for the benefit of a gang” was often dropped or used as a bargaining tool during plea negotiations.
But, the rubber had finally hit the road with the Angel Hernandez case. This would be Kandiyohi County’s first “for the benefit of a gang” case and would showcase the years-long work of the Gang Enforcement Team.
So, after months of accumulating evidence, gathering witnesses, sharing documents during the discovery phase, and preparing exhibits for the jury, the trial began on Monday, January 24, 2000 and was expected to last at least two full days.
On day one, attorneys from both sides questioned 22 potential jurors throughout the morning and early afternoon. They narrowed the pool down to 12, and after a short break for lunch, Judge Spilseth reconvened the court and addressed the jury.
THE COURT:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury:
In the course of the trial, you are going to hear testimony from witnesses and it will be your duty to make judgments about the credibility of their testimony. I ask you to be patient and listen carefully to the testimony of all the witnesses and keep it all in mind until you hear the entire case.
As you listen to each witness, you should pay attention to each witness’s interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the case, their ability and opportunity to know, remember and tell the facts, the witness’s experience, frankness, sincerity (or lack thereof), the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the testimony in light of all the other evidence in the case, and the other factors that weigh on the question of believability and weight. You should, in the last analysis, rely on your own experience, your own judgment, and your own common sense.
During the trial, an objection may be made to some evidence and I may direct that a question not be asked or answered. No one is trying to hide evidence from you, but only evidence that meets certain requirements can be presented to you for your consideration. Therefore, you should not speculate about what the evidence would have been if I had allowed it. If I instruct you during the trial to disregard some statement that a witness has made, you are to disregard it.
If you go home during the trial, your family and friends will be curious as to what you are doing. You may tell them that you are sitting on the jury for a person has been charged with several charges, including Committed for the Benefit of the Gang, but that is all you should tell them. You do not have to stay away from them or refuse to talk to them, but do not talk to them about the case.
Now, because this case is going to take more than one day, it’s possible that the case may be reported to the legal media. Please do not read about this case in the newspaper or listen to news about it or radio or television or any form of media.
Judge Spilseth provided some additional instructions for the jury, then took a 15-minute recess. When the court reconvened at 3:18 PM that day, he invited state prosecutor Connie Crowell to lead things off with her opening statement to the jury.
MS. CROWELL:
Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We’ve finally gotten to the point where we can begin. And I want to thank you all for your patience. It took a lot longer than it usually does.
I’ll reintroduce myself. My name is Connie Crowell. I’m the prosecutor in this case. And this is our opportunity to present for you opening statements.
Opening statements are not evidence. The Judge last told you that. What is evidence is what you’ll see and hear from the witness stand. What you will see and hear from the witness stand are testimony and exhibits from various witnesses, including the officers involved, the individuals involved, Wynn Elliott from J.C. Penney, Mitch Peterson from the Kandi Mall security, also Calvin Creswell from the Kandi Mall security.
What makes this case a bit different is that it involves what the State has alleged are crimes committed for the benefit of a gang. So, not just underlying crime, which is normally what you would hear, such as assault, terroristic threats, that sort of thing, but those crimes committed because they are done for the benefit of a gang.
In this case, ladies and gentlemen, the defendant is charged with four counts: Terroristic threats for the benefit of a gang. And that means that the defendant is alleged to have directly threatened to commit a crime of violence with the purpose of terrorizing someone, and that he did it for the purpose of—or in association with, or motivated by the involvement with—a criminal gang intended to promote, further or assist criminal conduct of that gang.
He’s alleged to have committed assault in the fifth degree, again for the benefit of a gang, that he committed an act with the intent to cause fear in another, disorderly conduct for the benefit of a gang, and also attempted theft. I wanted to lay that out for you, ladies and gentlemen, so that you have an idea of the basis for the conduct that the State contends rises to that level.
What we are talking about is an incident that goes back to February 17th of last year at the Kandi Mall in J.C. Penneys. Mr. Elliott, who you will hear from, is the J.C. Penneys manager. He’s on duty. He observes the defendant and a couple of the defendant’s companions enter the store. He sees what he regards as possibly suspicious behavior. He goes out, he starts toward the defendant, who is by himself, his two companions are somewhere else in the store, and he proceeds in that direction, takes his eye off the defendant for a moment, and the defendant disappeared. He’s now crouched down by the display of men’s jeans, a particular brand, Boss, I think. I don’t know the brands they wear anymore.
The defendant now is crouched down on the floor. Mr. Wynn Elliott will describe how he came up behind him, he kinda surprised him, and he saw what he believed the defendant had put something under his coat. Now, Mr. Elliott has been a manager at J.C. Penneys for a time, so he’s on the alert for this kind of behavior.
He approaches the defendant, says, “May I help you?” The defendant ignores him, walks around the counter. The manager continues with, “May I help you?” that sort of thing. The defendant starts to respond with, “Help me with what?” kind of thing. As the manager is going around the corner, he hears the jeans hit the floor, and, indeed, as he comes around, the jeans are on the floor.
The manager basically confronts him about what he believes is the defendant’s attempt to steal the jeans. The defendant becomes aggressive, hostile. “What do you mean?” and approaches the manager. He doesn’t back up, but he moves in, puts himself chest to chest, starts backing him up. The manager basically says, “I want you out of here. You are to leave. You are not welcome in the store. Get out.” The defendant starts moving toward the manager again. The manager requests that security get called.
At that point, the defendant starts moving toward the exit with his friends, who have now joined him. They start to go out the door. And that’s the door that exits out the back side, if you will, of J.C.
Penneys towards the Herberger/J.C. Penney parking lot. They go out that door, and as they are going out that door, now security has been alerted, so Mitch Peterson from Kandi Security, Vanessa Lamblez and also Cal Creswell meet up with the manager, who is now, as he indicates, he’s following them out to get either an ID on the car, a license plate, something.
At that point the altercation exacerbates in that parking lot. They get into it. The defendant is defiant, aggressive, hostile, threatening. He’s standing there in the face of Mr. Elliott again, now chest to chest. “You can’t do anything to me. I’m Angel Hernandez, head of the Latin Kings, and I can do anything I want,” is what he says. “I’m not afraid of the police, I’m not afraid of anyone.”
He is chest to chest with Mr. Elliott. He has his hands in his pockets. Mr. Peterson, who is by one side of Mr. Elliott, the other two security officers are pulling up the rear covering the back side because the other two individuals have kept some distance and are back here, but to ensure the security of everyone involved, they are back there covering the other two.
Mr. Elliott, who is now chest to chest with the defendant—who is about two inches taller than he is—is being pushed backward by the defendant, who has his hands in his pockets. Mr. Elliott will testify that he was very frightened for his safety. The defendant is saying things like, “I’m going to kick your ass. I’m going to kick your fucking ass. I’m not afraid of anyone.”
Mr. Elliott at that point is beginning to feel quite concerned for his safety. He doesn’t know what’s going on in those pockets. And he reaches up because the defendant is moving his chest in, shoving at him. Mr. Elliott puts his hands up, moves the defendant backwards, steps back himself. This is when Mr. Peterson steps in, who is right nearby, intervenes, starts to move because the defendant now is going to move in on Mr. Elliott again.
Mr. Peterson is intervening. “Whoa, whoa,” puts his arm in. The defendant is shoving his arm out. He wants to get back at Mr. Elliott.
At some point Mr. Peterson, who apparently had a new radio system on that night, and as luck would have it, it didn’t quite work properly, and they were attempting to call the police on that radio, it didn’t work, so Mr. Peterson is forced to turn to one of his officers, whom he doesn’t want to let go because he’s got three people, the defendant and two companions, to worry about, he’s got an aggressive, hostile situation, he doesn’t want to let one of these people go, but he’s got to call the cops. He sends Officer Lamblez, who is one of the two standing back toward the rear, to go in and call the police because their radios aren’t working.
At that point the defendant breaks off with his friends, and they go around that corner of Herberger’s toward Cashwise, where they meet up with a van, a maroon van, with its side door open, and they leave in that van.
What’s important, ladies and gentlemen -- and it is a straight-forward case -- the defendant was attempting to steal a pair of jeans. He didn’t quite succeed. They fell to the floor. He’s confronted by the store manager. He is told to leave. He doesn’t leave until security is called. He starts to move out the door. Security confronts him in the parking lot, and then we get this shoving, pushing. And, as Mr. Elliott will describe it, it looks to him as if he was trying to impress his friends. He was being very aggressive, very hostile, very threatening.
What is also important is what the defendant said. He said, “I’m Angel Hernandez, head of the Latin kings, and I can do anything I want.”
As he turned to Mr. Peterson, he not only said, “I’m going to kick your ass, I’m going to kick everybody’s ass, with a few expletives thrown in. Turned to Mr. Peterson, “I’m going to kill you. I’m going to come back and kill you.” Mr. Peterson, who is—at the time—head of security for the Kandi Mall, took him very seriously. Very seriously. He felt threatened for his safety, threatened for the safety of everyone there. And had that officer not been able to break away, that security officer, to call the police, the matter could have been gotten out of hand very, very quickly.
Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, not only is this significant because of what took place in that parking lot, but it is significant because of the affiliation of the defendant with a particular gang, and that is the Latin Kings.
What the evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, is that, indeed, there are gangs in Willmar. There are criminal gangs in Willmar, one of which the evidence will show is the Latin Kings. You’ll hear extensive testimony from two officers who are the Gang Enforcement Team from the Willmar area, Bruce Monson and Officer Proshek, James Proshek.
Officer Monson also did some of the investigation on this particular case. He did some of the follow-up interviews. You’ll hear about that. It’s important that you pay particular attention to the testimony that relates to the gang background information. It can get technical, it can get confusing, and there’s a lot of it. But it goes to some of the critical elements of the offense. If you will, it’s almost like Gang 101, because a lot of this is unfamiliar to folks.
Ladies and gentlemen, the gang statute has a particular definition. It talks about an ongoing criminal gang whose primary activity is the commission of crimes under 609.11. Now, 609.11 lays out various offenses, which include assault, murder, aggravated robbery, simple robbery, arson, harassment, felony drug charges, drive-by shootings, firearm violations, kidnapping, burglary, those kinds of crimes, which will be set out more fully for you as the Court will give you the instructions.
What you will also hear in terms of the testimony is a description how the gangs operate, how they work. What the evidence will show is that these gangs operate based on fear. There’s a phase called “Beat in, beat out.” You get beat in and you get beat out.
Particular gangs—and this is where some of this background information will hopefully assist you—particular gangs have colors they wear that are special to their gang. In this case, the Latin Kings, the colors are black and gold.
They have particular signs that they use to identify themselves and distinguish themselves from other hostile gangs. In this case, the Latin Kings—I’m not sure if I’m going to do this right—but this is apparently their sign, something like this [makes gang sign with hands].
They have symbols that they use. For instance, the five-pointed crown. That crown you will also see in the form of tattoos which are on some photographs that were taken of the defendant’s body during various booking procedures. The defendant had in the initial photograph a tattoo of a five-pointed crown on his stomach. The subsequent photography has added to the bottom “AKA” in a very gothic-looking style. “AKA” you’ll hear from the testimony is “Almighty King Angel.”
That is not unique to the defendant. Often those initials, that kind of tattoo, are found on other gang members. The Almighty King, AK, and then another initial, meaning the initial of the gang member.
There are particular directions that one gang may prefer over another. I’m giving a brief overview, and you are going to get much more detail from the witnesses. But it’s important that you, as you are following this, track with this, distinguishing characteristics, signs, et cetera. For instance, the hat cocked to the left for Latin Kings, it is a left representation. If they have one strap undone, it is the right one. The left one holds the pants. Hat is cocked to the left, If they have what they call a rag, that rag is going to be a particular color. What color? Black or gold. And it’s going to be where? On the left.
What you will also hear, ladies and gentlemen—and this is why it’s the State’s contention that these crimes were committed for the benefit of a gang—is that gangs in their structure and the way they operate, they operate based on fear and intimidation. Where do they get their power? Fear and intimidation.
What you will hear from the witnesses is that, indeed, it is this fear and intimidation, it is power and control, it is the way they move other gangs out of their territory. It is the way they make their mark on a community, on a mall, on a city. It is where they get their power. And how better, as you will hear from the witnesses, to get their power than to defy authority, to proudly state, “I am Angel Hernandez, head of the Latin Kings, and I can do anything I want.”
The state is confident that when you hear all of the evidence, when you hear all the testimony that relates to this incident and the Latin Kings and how they operate, that you will find the defendant guilty on all counts.
As Connie Crowell took her seat, Judge Spilseth asked Angel’s defense attorney, John Holbrook, if he had an opening statement he wished to offer.
MR. HOLBROOK:
Ladies and gentlemen, again, my name is John Holbrook. I am representing Mr. Hernandez in this case.
I want to remind you about what the Judge told you and will tell you again, that what the attorneys say in this cases isn't evidence. It's our argument. And if anything we say either in opening or closing differs from your recollection of what we went on in the trial, go on your recollection.
Now, in opening statement, this is our opportunity to tell you what we think will transpire during the course of the trial, and when we close, it will be our argument in asking you to view our respective position.
I'm in an interesting position in this case, ladies and gentlemen, because I submit to you that, even if everything Ms. Crowell says is true, there's no case here. If every fact—not conclusion or opinion—but if every fact she said is correct, and I don't think it is, they have to prove it. There's no crime. Not the crimes they allege here.
You are going to hear evidence about gangs. Gangs, gangs, gangs. You are not going to hear about Al Capone, who was a gangster, or John Gotti, who was a gangster. You are not going to hear about drug running or prostitution or bank robbery. You are going to hear about this kid, in essence, letting his mouth write a check his butt couldn't cash. That's exactly what happened—nothing more, nothing less—at best.
Worst case scenario, it's a disorderly conduct. And I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, when you view the evidence and the facts in this case, that the evidence in this case and the facts in this case will show that this man isn't on trial for what he did. The facts will show he's on trial for who he is and what he is. And I ask you to bear that in mind, because that's what I think the evidence is going to show.
The evidence is clear no terroristic threats occurred. If he's showing off for gangsters, who's he showing off for? It's in the middle of a parking lot. That's what the evidence will show. The evidence is clear. They have no proof he stole anything. In the very complaint, the pants that the J.C. Penneys people allege he tried to steal, which never left the store, were size 38 by 34. Does he wear size 38 pants?
He's here because of who he is. He's in a store, he's confronted, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, I don't know. It's for you to decide. But the evidence is going to show that he left. He was trying to leave. The evidence is going to show he tried to just leave, and these security guards are following him and they are hassling him, and he got tired of it. He didn't leave the store with any pants. There's no evidence that he stole any pants. They have nothing. They have a pair of pants laying on the floor.
Now, I'm not here to suggest that anybody's completely right or completely wrong, especially my client, but he committed no crime, and certainly not the crimes that he's alleged to have committed.
Now, we are going to hear a lot about gangs, but keep this in mind. I believe the Judge will tell you that the evidence has to make a connection. They've got to put him in a gang, a criminal gang. Not a gang that Tom Brokaw describes as a gang of pals, Our Gang, Spanky and his Gang. A criminal gang, a bad-guy gang, not just a bunch of kids. They are doing criminal wrongdoing, and he's part of it. And then, that what he did in the parking lot at the Kandi Mall was in furtherance of that criminal activity. And I submit they can't do it.
So, I ask you not to have your fears manipulated by evidence of gangs, because that may very well come in. I don't know. It's up to them. But there's no causal connection, there's no tie between this pushing and shoving match out at the Kandi Mall and anything that he may or may not be associated with. And even if he is, so what? It's got nothing to do with what happened at the Kandi Mall. And the facts, I believe, ladies and gentlemen, will show that.
Now, we are going to hear “gangs this, gangs that,” and they are going to talk about police officers that are experts in gangs, and they are going to tell you, "I'm an expert in a gang." Blond hair, blue eyed police officer happens to be an expert on Hispanic gangs. Imagine that. But that's what they are going to submit to you. And just remember this. Those two guys are Willmar police officers. Those two experts are Willmar police officers who have a vested interest in the outcome of this case.
So, you have an important job to do. There's a lot going on in this community, and it's dumped in your lap. And the facts will compel a NOT GUILTY verdict. Thank you.
Next time: The witnesses, the evidence, and the verdict.
Now in Paperback, Dear Jacob: A Mother’s Journey of Hope
Released January 14, 2025
Memoir / True Crime, 354 pages, 6 x 9, 24 b&w images, new afterword
Paperback, $22.95, ISBN: 978-1-68134-314-3
e-Book, $12.99, ISBN: 978-1-68134-318-1
New Reader’s Guide for Book Clubs
Check out the new online Reader’s Guide for Dear Jacob at https://www.dearjacobbook.com/p/readers-guide
Patty and I are visiting book clubs and discussing Dear Jacob: A Mother’s Journey of Hope on Zoom! In return, we ask that your book club make a donation of any amount to the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center. Message us for details. We look forward to sharing Dear Jacob with you!
Audiobook
People often ask us if there’s an audiobook version of Dear Jacob and the answer is, yes! It was published by Dreamscape Media at the same time the hard cover was released last year. It’s narrated by Rebecca Stern who does an amazing job voicing this emotional story.
The audiobook has been updated with the new cover art and afterword —which is read by Joy in her own voice.
You can find the audio version of Dear Jacob: A Mother’s Journey of Hope on all the major audio platforms, including Audible, Audiobooks.com, Apple Books.com, Hoopla, Libby, Libro.fm, Google Play Books, and Everand. If you’re interested in listening to a sample of Dear Jacob, click the following link.
https://www.audiobooks.com/book/stream/717092
Excerpt from the new Afterword
By Joy Baker
Sometimes a person comes into your life for reasons you can’t possibly un-derstand. When Patty and I first started working on this book, Jacob was still missing. We thought we were working on a legacy piece that would bring attention to his case, highlight Patty’s advocacy work, and serve as a spark of hope for other families of missing children. We were wrong. It became so much more.
As we worked on those early pages together, we couldn’t possibly have known what was in store for us or what our friendship would have to endure. To see it through would mean going there together—through the darkness, the sadness, and the unfathomable grief. Could we even do it? Would people be receptive to it? Would our friendship survive it?
It has been a remarkable journey.
At that charity gala in 2013 when Patty and I first met, I was forty-six; she was sixty-five. I had just given up my dream of starting a new writing career and gone back to working full-time at what I knew—marketing. Patty was a well-known keynote speaker, a child safety advocate, a national figure in Washington, DC, and probably the most famous Minnesotan I’d ever met. She just oozed drive and purpose. Like everyone else at the gala, I was blown away by her powerful message of hope and her belief in the overall goodness of humankind.
So I was more than a little nervous about approaching Patty that evening and introducing myself as the blogger who had been writing about her missing son for the past two months. Did she know who I was? Had she been following my blog? Was I making a difference? I was desperately trying to figure out my own purpose in life and hoped maybe this was it. By writing about Jacob’s case and asking people to “think Jacob” with me, maybe I could somehow create change.
It didn’t go as expected. Patty saw my writing less as “making a difference” and more “like stalking or something.”
Look for the new paperback now at your favorite bookstore or online retailer!
Wow Joy! Well done. It's a lot to process but you really show the complexity of what was going on in Wilmar at that time! Thanks!
Fantastic Chapter!