Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prosecutor Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witness says website language was a campaign statement, not office policy, after questioning about site change
Summary
A witness told a questioner that a removed website statement promising to consider immigration consequences in charging and plea decisions was a past campaign claim, not current office policy; the questioner tied the change to scrutiny after a case involving Mr. Morales Ortiz and a subsequent fatality.
A Questioner pressed a Witness about why a campaign-era website statement saying the office would "take immigration consequences into account when making charging and pleading" was changed, and whether the removal was timed after officials asked the Witness to testify.
The Witness responded that the language on the site was a campaign statement made before holding office and said, "Because that's not my policy," adding the site language did not reflect the office’s current prosecutorial practice. The Witness disputed the Questioner’s suggestion that the website equated to an operational policy and said the statement predated having cases the Witness handled.
The Questioner repeatedly asked why the website was altered and suggested the timing was suspicious after a letter requesting testimony: "a week after we send you a letter saying we want you to come testify. Shazam, you change it. Asking is is that coincidental?" The Witness maintained the distinction between campaign rhetoric and official policy and said they preferred to focus testimony on office policies rather than a prior campaign statement.
The exchange escalated when the Questioner asserted that the sheriff had said the office would not prosecute and cited a case involving Mr. Morales Ortiz, saying a released person "kills someone the next day" and critics then raised questions about prosecutorial decisions. That allegation was presented by the Questioner as context for why the website language drew scrutiny; the Witness disputed the characterization of the office’s policy and how the site language should be interpreted.
Both sides framed the core issue differently: the Questioner emphasized timing and public-safety consequences tied to a specific case, while the Witness emphasized that the website language was tied to a campaign promise and not an operative mandate for charging decisions. The transcript records disagreement but does not include an on-the-record clarification resolving whether the website change was coordinated with the request to testify or whether the campaign language guided specific charging decisions.
The exchange concluded with continued disagreement over whether the website reflected policy or campaign rhetoric and with no formal resolution recorded in the provided transcript.
