Left: Henrry Josue Villatoro Santos (Alexandria Sheriff’s Office). Right: Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks with reporters at the White House, Tuesday, April 8, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Evan Vucci).
A federal judge on Wednesday agreed to dismiss criminal charges against a man previously accused of being a top MS-13 leader — extending a dizzying in-court volley of charges, recriminations, and backtracking in a case that quickly became something of an albatross hanging on the Trump administration‘s immigration agenda.
On March 27, with much fanfare and attention, Henrry Josue Villatoro Santos, 24, was arrested, charged with one count of possession of a firearm by an undocumented immigrant, and excoriated during a press conference by a collection of top government figures. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested the allegation would form the basis of a marquee case against “one of the top members and head of the East Coast” branch of the transnational gang.
But the promised prosecution quickly flamed out.
In initial and subsequent court filings, no violent crimes were alleged; nor were any MS-13-related activities ever attributed to Villatoro Santos. Instead, the government swiftly moved to dismiss his case — opting for a quick deportation. Meanwhile, in an admittedly “unusual” posture, the defense asked the court to keep the case alive.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
In public comments, Trump administration officials — including comments from President Donald Trump himself — repeatedly made hay of the defendant’s alleged MS-13 stature, with the president calling him a “major leader” of the transnational gang. In court filings, the government offered a lone sentence making such claims.
“FBI agents and [task force officers] also observed indicia of MS-13 association in the garage bedroom,” federal authorities alleged in an affidavit.
For a lone allegation the government wants dropped, the public docket on the once-ballyhooed case has been exceptionally busy.
On April 1, probable cause for the gun charge was found by one of the three magistrate judges who have been assigned to — and quickly shuttled off of — the case. Exactly one week later, the federal public defender’s office withdrew from the case and Villatoro Santos obtained private counsel. The next day, the government moved to dismiss the case without prejudice — and without explanation.
On April 9, the defendant’s new attorney, Muhammad Elsayed, rubbished the development in a motion to delay entry of dismissal.
The defense argued the Department of Justice was dropping the firearm possession case in lieu of deportation under immigration law — where defendants have markedly fewer constitutional rights.
Moreover, the defense argued, Villatoro Santos would, if subject to immigration authorities, face the same fate as admittedly “wrongfully deported” Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old father with protected status who was taken into custody by federal agents and quickly whisked away to the “notorious” El Salvadoran prison Centro de Confinamiento de Terrorismo (CECOT) — despite court orders that he remain in the U.S.
“The danger of Mr. Villatoro Santos being unlawfully deported by ICE without due process and removed to El Salvador, where he would almost certainly be immediately detained at one of the worst prisons in the world without any right to contest his removal, is substantial, both in light of the Government’s recent actions and the very public pronouncements in this particular case,” the defense motion reads.
On April 11, the government filed a response in opposition suggesting its plans for Villatoro Santos do, in fact, include deportation.
“It is well within the prerogative of the United States to seek the removal of aliens who are illegally or unlawfully in this country in lieu of prosecuting them, regardless of whether charges have been filed,” the government’s motion noted.
On April 15, during a hearing, DOJ attorneys convinced the judge to grant the “leave of court” required for a voluntary dismissal, according to a minute entry and follow-up order.
At the same time, the magistrate judge overseeing the case briefly stayed his own order and forbid federal authorities from transferring Villatoro Santos to the “jurisdiction” of the Department of Homeland Security until then.
On April 16, during the pause, Elsayed filed both an appeal of the magistrate judge’s decision and an emergency motion to extend the stay — citing a “grave danger” that the government “will immediately and summarily deport Mr. Villatoro Santos to El Salvador in violation of the law.”
On April 17, the court signed off on the defense’s emergency request pending the resolution of the underlying appeal. Again, the court prohibited the government from transferring Villatoro Santos “to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security before the District Judge resolves the Defendant’s appeal.”
On Wednesday, all the seesawing came to something of a head.
At least in the lower court.
During a hearing, Senior U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed the criminal case against Villatoro Santos over the strong objection of his defense attorney, according to a courtroom report by CBS News.
Elsayed accused the government of misusing a so-called “Rule 48 Motion” to force dismissal. Under this federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, which governs case dismissals, a court has limited discretion whether or not to grant a dismissal initiated by the government.
“They want to deport him without due process,” the defense attorney argued. “The court has to dig deeper than just the basic motion … The DOJ did not seek to remove this case without knowing what’s coming next.”
The government, for its part, said Villatoro Santos had delayed the case’s dismissal past the defense’s initial request — and reiterated an argument earlier made in motions that the once-accused man “cannot continue to tread water on the criminal docket.”
“This is an unusual case,” the defense attorney told the judge — also reiterating a motions argument — and cautioning that it was the court’s job “to determine whether the motion was made in good faith.”
Now, at least, the government has convinced at least one court that the all-but immediate dismissal bid was on the level. The defense, however, signaled that additional motions would be filed soon.
“They’re likely to take him very quickly,” Elsayed reportedly said after the hearing. “There will likely be additional proceedings.”
