Three people charged in a sex trafficking conspiracy tied to Tootsys Gentleman’s Club appeared for a preliminary hearing Wednesday in District Court on St. Thomas, where hours of testimony and cross-examination pushed proceedings into the late afternoon and prompted a judge to continue the case for a second day.
U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Alan Teague cited the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as he allowed attorneys representing Hussein Jamil and Magda Castro Santos to question an FBI investigator at length during that hearing. Special Agent Kiernan Whitworthy answered questions about surveillance and undercover operations conducted in and around Tootsys Gentleman’s Club in Red Hook.
Information obtained from those operations helped investigators file an affidavit with the court on April 17. Authorities staged a raid on the club hours later, arresting club manager Santos and Hidalgo de Pena.
Court records show that Jamil was taken into custody the following day at a property in Bolongo Bay, where several of the performers at Tootsys rented sleeping quarters.
Under questioning by Assistant U.S. Attorney Natasha Baker, Whitworthy described his role in the operation, working as part of a team led by the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations.
Defense attorney Carlos Sanchez La Costa began his cross-examination by producing a series of photos from inside the club. Baker said she did not object and asked that they be entered as evidence before the questioning began.
Questions ranged from the immigration status of dancers and the manager to evidence recovered from the club showing that commercial sex acts were taking place there. Sanchez also asked Whitworthy if agents entering the club took note of a posted sign saying prostitution was prohibited at Tootsys.
No, the witness said, he was not aware. Jamil’s lawyer also asked if Whitworthy knew about passports found at the club during the raid. That prompted the judge to remind the legal teams they agreed to question information contained in the affidavit only, and that the Affidavit in Support of a Criminal Complaint was filed earlier in the day on April 17, prior to the raid.
Bandas took over the cross-examination on behalf of Santos after being told by the judge to avoid redundancy. “You don’t need to ask questions if matters have already been answered,” Teague said.
Bandas told the court that he and Sanchez had a late-afternoon flight to catch back to Puerto Rico, but he felt obliged to question the witness on behalf of his client. He began by asking Whitworthy if he had ever gone to Tootsys himself.
The answer began with a pause — “No.” Bandas asked how long the special agent had been working on the Tootsys case.
Since 2023, Whitworthy said.
The lawyer asked whether there was evidence that his client transported persons to St. Thomas, and if any of the recorded receipts handled by the club manager indicated commercial sex transactions. “Did any of those receipts clearly state that those customers were paying for sex?” Bandas asked.
“No,” Whitworthy said.
“But you clearly understand that there were clients paying for sex there?” Bandas asked.
“Yes. There was an undercover operation there,” producing statements from agents that transactions with the dancers were taking place, the witness said.
Additional questioning followed about surveillance operations conducted on different occasions.
By then, it was almost time for the traveling lawyers to leave.
Baker for the prosecution said, although the government agreed to let the cross-examination go forward, “95 percent of these questions were arguments and could have been asked at a later proceeding.”
Teague agreed and noted that while some questions posed by Bandas sought information about criminal acts directly committed, the charges against the three defendants pointed to conspiracy.
The judge told those at Wednesday’s hearing to return to the courtroom Thursday at 10:30 a.m. At that time, defense attorney Robert Millan would conduct his cross-examination, and Baker for the government would offer her rebuttal.
“The court is going to be ruling from the bench, and the court is going to have a pretty extensive ruling as to whether there is probable cause,” Teague said.
