Federal prosecutors admitted they hid key criminal-history facts that helped free an accused MS-13 killer known as “The Witch.”
Story Snapshot
- Prosecutors told a San Diego judge they made a “manifest error” by omitting the suspect’s record.
- The judge said she would have detained him if the government had provided the facts on time.
- The case spotlights breakdowns in immigration detention litigation and government accountability.
- Conservatives argue public safety suffered because the system failed at a basic duty of disclosure.
Prosecutors Admit Error That Led to Release
Federal prosecutors in San Diego acknowledged they failed to disclose the suspect’s criminal history to the court before a key ruling. Assistant United States Attorney Michael Wallace called it a “manifest error of law and fact” and apologized in a sworn statement. The omission meant the judge did not see the full record when she decided the custody issue. This failure, by prosecutors’ own account, paved the way for the man’s release from immigration detention.
U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta later said, on the record, that she would have ruled differently if the government had supplied the missing information in time. That acknowledgment ties the outcome to the lapse, not to a desire to go easy on a violent offender. The core point is simple: the system cannot work when the court gets an incomplete file. The judge can only rule on what the government puts in front of her.
Who Was Released and Why It Alarms the Public
The man at the center is David Antonio Aviles Perez, a suspected member of the MS-13 gang known as “La Bruja,” or “The Witch.” Reports say he faced an aggravated murder warrant out of El Salvador. Immigration officers had held him for months without a bond hearing. His lawyers filed a habeas petition to challenge that detention. The judge ordered release after finding the government had not met due-process duties in time. The omitted criminal history facts were crucial to detention decisions.
Federal and local reporting describe a high-risk profile that would have supported ongoing custody if properly presented. Prosecutors now concede they did not provide that record before the decision point. That failure inflamed public concern. People expect the government to keep violent offenders locked up when the law allows. When a paperwork lapse helps free a dangerous suspect, it feels like government is failing its first job: protect the public and follow the rules that enable it.
Due Process, Disclosure, and Government Duty
Courts rely on timely, accurate filings to balance liberty and safety. In immigration detention and criminal cases alike, judges weigh danger and flight risk based on the government’s record. When the government misses or withholds key facts, courts can order release to correct due-process violations. Defense guides note that habeas petitions often succeed when agencies detain people without proper hearings or records. That is the legal channel the suspect used here to challenge his custody.
This breakdown echoes a wider pattern where disclosure errors trigger harsh outcomes. Federal practice recognizes strict duties to present material facts to the court, and history shows judges penalize failures that block fair process. While those cases often involve evidence that helps a defendant, the principle is the same: the court cannot ignore due process. If prosecutors do not meet their duty, the remedy can be release. That risk is why timely, complete filings are nonnegotiable.
Accountability and Public Safety Under Trump’s DOJ
President Trump’s administration now has to clean this up. The Justice Department can review why the omission happened and how to stop repeats. Offices can tighten checklists for detention cases, stand up immediate disclosure audits, and require senior review before hearings that set liberty or detention. If staffing or training gaps caused the lapse, leadership must fix them fast. Voters want fewer excuses and more competence that keeps violent offenders in lawful custody.
Conservatives also want Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to align detention policy with common sense. That means faster bond hearings, complete records at first touch, and clear lines of authority to appeal risky releases. The law must protect due process and the public in the same breath. When government shows up prepared, judges have what they need to detain truly dangerous people. Order at the border and in the courts depends on that basic discipline.
Sources:
nypost.com, zetik.com, lawfaremedia.org
