Gill Presses VA Attorney Over Reducing Charges Against Illegal Immigrant Accused Of Shocking Crime

[0:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on a really important issue that I think a lot of [0:08] Americans care very deeply about. Mr. Descano, I want to start with you. I've got a couple questions [0:16] for you. I've got a document titled Guidelines for Plea Bargaining, Charging Decisions, and [0:24] Sentencing, and it states that prosecutors shall consider the collateral immigration consequences [0:33] of the specific crimes the defendant is charged with, and the detrimental impact the deportation [0:38] removal has on the families and communities, not from your campaign website, this is the official [0:44] policy document as well. Is that correct? Do you recognize this? Yes, you read a portion of the [0:49] policy, sir. That's right. I'm not going to read the full thing. I don't expect you, sir. It's about [0:54] 11 pages, so I'm not going to read the full thing. I want to better understand how you weigh an illegal [1:01] alien's immigration status whenever you're making charging decisions. Do you know who [1:07] Ander Jose Cortez Mendez is? Are you familiar with that case? Yes, sir. Okay, this is a Guatemalan [1:15] illegal alien who was arrested in March of 2024. He was initially charged with, quote, [1:21] carnal knowledge of a 13 to 14-year-old. Just for those of us who aren't lawyers, can you describe [1:27] just very briefly what does carnal knowledge of a 13 to 14-year-old mean in this context? Well, [1:33] sir, generally a charge like that would typically refer to underage sex. Okay, so he raped an [1:41] underage person, an illegal alien who raped an underage American. Your office reduced those charges to [1:47] a misdemeanor charge of consensual sex with a child 15 years and older. You offered him a 90-day [1:54] suspended jail sentence. Is that correct? Sir, based on the evidence that we had in the case? [2:00] So it is correct. But it's not related to the policy, sir. So that is correct. I just want to [2:06] ask you, whenever you were making that charging decision to reduce the charge, how did you weigh [2:10] the defendant's immigration status? Well, sir, to be clear, I was not the lead prosecutor in that case. [2:17] It was your office. Absolutely, sir. I, of course, rely on my team of 50-some attorneys to do cases. [2:27] But I think what is important is that oftentimes, as you know, sir, as a prosecutor, [2:34] you know, we're constrained by the evidence. We're constrained by what we have. [2:36] I just need to know, how did you weigh, how did you take into account the defendant's immigration status? [2:41] Well, sir, again, I'm saying. Making that decision. How did your office make that determination? [2:45] Well, what I was, what I would say is that, and thank you for clarifying, [2:49] um, if you take a look at the, the immigration consequence, uh, consequences policy, or, uh, [2:56] let me ask it a different way. Did, did you re, did your office reduce charges against this [3:00] illegal alien from a felony rape charge to a misdemeanor charge with a 90-day suspended jail sentence, [3:07] in part because this was an illegal alien in question? No, this was evidentiary-based. [3:11] It was evident, there was no, it had nothing to do with the, the defendant's immigration status. [3:15] Sir, when you. Is that your testimony? If you read the policy, you'll see that. [3:19] Did it have anything to do with the defendant's immigration status? It's just yes or no? [3:22] Well, sir, it was based on the evidence. It, it, it. I'm asking you, did, [3:26] was their immigration status part of the evidence? I don't believe so, sir. Yes or no? You don't [3:30] believe so? Your policy, your policy says that it, you shall consider their immigration. Actually, [3:35] sir, if you actually read the whole policy, it explicitly carves out cases. Prosecutors shall [3:38] consider the collateral immigration consequences of the specific crimes the defendant is charged with [3:43] and the detrimental impact that deportation removal has on the families. It also mentions that [3:48] the, it's not, it's not outcome determinative. It also explicitly states- I understand and I'm [3:52] asking you if that, if you weighed, your office weighed, uh, uh, the defendant's immigration status in, [3:58] in making your charging decisions here. Oh, again, sir, I was the, I was not the lead prosecutor. [4:02] I'm asking for your office. I understand you're not the lead. Exactly. I just want to be clear. [4:06] But the way that the policy is written, that case should not have fallen under the rubric of this [4:13] policy. This is a narrow policy and is meant to be a narrow policy. Illegal alien. I think that would [4:20] qualify. Would it not? Well, no, sir, because again, the, the way that the policy is being presented [4:26] as it is, as it is outcome determinative, go to every case. There would be, there would be immigration, [4:30] uh, consequences based on what, what charge you bring. That would clearly apply to this case. [4:36] No, sir. Again, uh, that's the reason why I mentioned earlier, you've read a portion, [4:41] but not the entire two paragraphs of this subhead. Prosecutors shall consider. I just want to know, [4:46] yes or, just give me a yes or no answer. Did you take into account the defendant's immigration status? [4:50] Sir, again, I was not, but the way the policy, the way the policy is written, no, they should not [4:55] have taken, that, that is not outcome determinative in a case like this, sir. Great. Thank you. My [5:00] time's up. Mr. Grothman. Yeah, I had another hearing, so I apologize if I'm.