Posted on 11/15/2006 11:01:08 AM PST by HiJinx
Grandfather gives tearful testimony; sides make opening statements
By Jonathan Clark
Herald/Review
BISBEE — Arturo Morales began to sob as he told jurors how he tried to console his young granddaughter and her friend as a furious Roger Barnett, handgun holstered at his side, told them to get off his property or he would start shooting.
“They were asking, ‘Why does he want to kill us?’ and I just held their hands,” said the 59-year-old Morales, one of the plaintiffs in a civil trial accusing Barnett of terrorizing a hunting party during an incident in 2004.
“I could not stop them,” Morales continued, “honest to God, I could not stop them, they were crying so much.”
Morales told the Superior Court jury that he and his son, Ronald Morales, were taking his two granddaughters, ages 9 and 11, and an 11-year-old friend on their first hunting trip when he encountered Roger Barnett’s brother, Donald Barnett, in an undeveloped area northeast of Douglas.
“I tried to explain to him that we had permission, that we had a pass (to be on the land),” Arturo Morales said. “But he said I was in the wrong place.”
Donald Barnett told Arturo Morales to leave the property, which he said belonged to the Barnetts. But Morales explained that his son and one of the girls had gone off looking for deer, and that he couldn’t leave until they returned.
Donald Barnett then drove off to examine an access gate that the elder Morales told him had been left open. A few minutes later, as Arturo Morales waited for the two hunters to return, Roger Barnett drove up.
“He said, ‘Get the (expletive) out of here or I’m going to start shooting,” Arturo Morales said. “He accused me of taking down his (no trespassing) sign, and he said that I was an (expletive) ignorant Mexican.”
Arturo Morales said he told Roger Barnett that he was waiting for his son and granddaughter, and he began honking the horn of his truck to get their attention. When they finally arrived, Ronald Morales asked Barnett what his name was.
At that point, according plaintiffs’ attorney Jesus Romo Vejar, Barnett ran to his truck, took out an AR-15 assault rifle, chambered the weapon, and said: “My name is Roger (expletive) Barnett and I’m going to shoot you.”
The family then left the area, called 911 and later filed a complaint with the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office. When the county attorney decided not to press charges in the case, the Morales’, with the help of the Tucson-based civil rights group Border Action Network, filed a civil claim against Barnett.
The suit accused Barnett of assault, false imprisonment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and asked for $200,000 in damages.
Arturo Morales testified Tuesday that since the run-in with Roger Barnett on Oct. 30, 2004, he has suffered loss of sleep, sexual dysfunction, an aversion to guns and a general sense of anxiety. He said his granddaughters continue to live in fear of Barnett and refuse to hunt again.
During cross-examination, however, defense attorney John Kelliher asked the elder Morales why, if the episode had affected his life so adversely, he had never sought medical or psychological treatment. And he pointed out that while Arturo Morales testified that he was now afraid of guns, he acknowledged he had gone on hunting excursions since the 2004 incident.
Kelliher also noted that Morales had made previous statements that his 9-year-old granddaughter started crying not because she thought Barnett would shoot her, but because she was afraid her grandfather was going to be arrested.
And the attorney hammered away at the fact that Morales, an experienced hunter with a long history in the area, was never certain as to whose land he was on.
During his opening remarks to the jury, Kelliher said only one member of the Morales party had a valid license to hunt on Oct. 30, 2004. He noted that the date marked the first day of hunting season, and that Roger Barnett has a long-established history of not allowing hunters to use his land without written permission.
Furthermore, Kelliher said Arturo Morales had had a previous encounter with Roger Barnett in which he was cited by a sheriff’s deputy for hunting on Barnett’s property. Therefore, the attorney said, Morales knew well before the 2004 confrontation that Barnett restricted hunting on his ranch.
Arturo Morales, however, testified the incident prior to 2004 had involved a Barnett sibling and not Roger Barnett himself. And the Morales’ claim asserts that the land in question was not the rancher’s private property, but state-leased land, which made it permissible for them to hunt there.
Both parties have promised to present evidence proving their interpretation of the land’s status.
As for the confrontation between Roger Barnett and Arturo and Ronald Morales, Kelliher acknowledged the situation became heated and that it involved people carrying guns. But he said evidence would show the dispute was a two-way exchange that did not incriminate his client more so than the Morales adults.
“I don’t doubt that there were words exchanged,” Kelliher said. “What I do doubt is that Roger Barnett threatened to kill anybody.”
One issue auspiciously absent from Tuesday’s proceedings was illegal immigration.
Roger Barnett estimates he has made citizen’s arrests of more than 12,000 illegal border-crossers who have trespassed on his ranch since 1996. In the process, he has become both revered and reviled in the border issues debate.
Starting in 2003, the Border Action Network and other civil rights groups began targeting Barnett with civil claims such as the Morales suit in an effort to drain the rancher’s coffers and expose what they say is a pattern of racially motivated vigilantism.
But in a pre-trial ruling, Judge James Conlogue precluded from evidence hundreds of pages of law enforcement reports dealing with Barnett’s apprehensions of illegal immigrants. Romo Vejar may only present the documents to impeach contradictory statements by witnesses.
The Morales-Barnett trial continues today at 9 a.m. at the Cochise County Superior Courthouse in Bisbee.
“I tried to explain to him that we had permission, that we had a pass (to be on the land),” Arturo Morales said. “But he said I was in the wrong place.”
He obviously did not have a pass from the Barnetts. The only other pass he could possibly have had was his AZ hunting license...which serves only as permission to be on State Trust Land to hunt.
Ping!
False imprisonment?! Where is that supposed to have come from, even if Morales's story is to be believed?
"Get the F off my property or I'll shoot you" is "false imprisonment"? Damn.
If it is, case closed and he should sue Border Action Network for harassment.
It's a standard tactic of the Border Action Network and this attorney.
Roger has detained thousands of illegals - in this case, they are saying that he was just doing what he's been doing all along for more than 10 years - but this time, he detained the wrong Mexican. Oops, sorry, Mexican-American.
Footnote: The attorney for the plaintiff is the same one who tried the civil case against the Barnetts this summer. And lost.
Knowing what I do about the incident, and being eligible for this jury, that is probably the principal question I would be looking to have answered.
I would also be looking for signs of a set-up on the part of the BAN. I wouldn't put it past them.
sw
assault
This is the scary one...because he may have really overstepped this time.
I kinda wish I could take a day off from work, I'd like to sit in on this one to see how it's going, rather than just read the recap in the next day's paper.
The plaintiff's attorney has a tough task ahead to prove the charges.
I wonder...will they bring up the fact that the televised statements from the girls were read from prepared notes, and obvoiusly coached...?
Heartwrenching. How horrible he wouldn't just COMPLY.
This is why I smell a setup.
Okay...lunchtime is over and I'm offline for awhile.
I'll check back in tonight and see how this thread goes...provide amplification to posters where needed...
HA! I see it coming...
"Would you please tell the court, in your own words as you read the first two paragraphs, how you felt intimidated because you tore down and disregarded the "NO TRESPASSING" signs and got caught?"
Win, lose, or draw, sad fact is you and I will ultimately be sacked with the attorney's fees.
And then, we have him saying he was sexually dysfunctional because of it? I don't think so....I'd be laughing myself silly if I were on that Jury.
sw
Hopefully the defense has deposed the plaintiffs wife and any other female he has been intimate with as to the veracity of that claim.
sw
Sounds like malicious prosecution to me.
I'm not sure whether malicious prosecution is an offense at law or just an observation of their tactics.
If the latter, then you win the prize...that's exactly what's going on, and Jennifer what's her name of the Border Action Network has as much as admitted it on several occasions.
I’d like to see this Border Action Network group have their asses sued. They are ignorant liberals that want to open our borders even wider for the illegals to pour in. I say put this BAN out of business and the illegals in Sheriff Joe’s custody for about a year and then deport them. Double their sentence each time they’re caught. Maybe they won’t tresspass and destroy other people’s property anymore. A person has the right to defend his property from scumbags. Is there a legal fund for Barnett?
I’d like to see this Border Action Network group have their asses sued. They are ignorant liberals that want to open our borders even wider for the illegals to pour in. I say put this BAN out of business and the illegals in Sheriff Joe’s custody for about a year and then deport them. Double their sentence each time they’re caught. Maybe they won’t tresspass and destroy other people’s property anymore. A person has the right to defend his property from scumbags. Is there a legal fund for Barnett?
Yes there is - it was posted on another thread - I’ll ping you to it here in a moment...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.