Posted on 04/23/2024 9:37:09 AM PDT by servo1969
Arizona Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink declared a mistrial for Arizona rancher George Alan Kelly, 75, who faced charges of second-degree murder in the death of an illegal alien on his property.
The jury voted 7-1 not guilty. Only one person voted “guilty of 2nd degree murder (or lesser charges to include negligent homicide and manslaughter).”
The incident happened in January 2023:
The jury began deliberating April 18. After days of being unable to reach a verdict, the judge overseeing the trial declared a mistrial on Monday.The case centered around the death of Mexican national Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea, who was found shot to death on Kelly’s 170-acre cattle ranch near Keno Springs outside Nogales, Arizona, on Jan. 30, 2023.
Kelly’s defense has countered the prosecution’s argument that Cuen-Buitimea was an unarmed migrant and has suggested cartel influence mired the death investigation.
The U.S. deported Cuen-Buitmea numerous times. The most recent happened in 2016:
The defense maintained Kelly only fired warning shots into the air from his patio earlier in the day, and his wife, Wanda Kelly, testified about dialing their Border Patrol ranch liaison upon spotting two armed men dressed in camouflage and carrying rifles and backpacks walking about 100 feet from their home. Law enforcement responded to the property, and hours passed before Kelly called Border Patrol again to report finding the body.The fatal bullet was never recovered from the scene. A criminologist working pro bono as a consultant for Kelly’s defense, Dr. Ron Martinelli, previously told Fox News Digital that none of the state’s witnesses in the trial had provided any rebuttal testimony against the defense theory that a rip crew — a gang of bandits, sometimes cartel-affiliated — could have fatally shot Cuen-Buitimea and robbed him.
Sheriff Cruz County Sheriff David Hathaway faced tough questions from the defense:
Santa Cruz County Sheriff David Hathaway was pressed by the defense about an online video showing him speculating that Kelly wanted to “go hunt me some Mexicans.”“You told Big Super, ‘We caught this rancher shooting at migrants’ and then you said that ‘there are people who want to come hunt some Mexicans’ — you made that statement?” a defense attorney asked Hathaway on Wednesday. Big Super is the name of the real estate YouTube personality whose video Hathaway was featured in touring his borderlands neighborhood.
“Yeah I did,’ Hathway replied. “I just did a colloquial, ‘There are some people that want to go hunt them some Mexicans.’ Yeah I did make that statement.”
Martinelli also alleged to Fox News Digital that Hathaway broke U.S. State Department protocol and Mexican law by arranging an unauthorized meeting to interview Daniel Ramirez in Nogales, Mexico, weeks after the shooting. The prosecution argued that Ramirez was the sole witness to Cuen-Buitimea’s shooting death and fled across the border afterward.
Ramirez testified that he previously carried drugs across the border, though not on the day of the January 2023 shooting.
The defense argued that based on Ramirez’s own testimony, it did not seem he was even present that day. The jury was able to make a field trip to Kelly’s ranch to get a lay of the land.
Larkin told jurors that Kelly was confronted with “a threat to his life” and “had a rifle pointed at him,” meaning that he would have been justified in using deadly physical force.
But even so, the rancher “didn’t use deadly physical force,” Larkin said in her closing argument. “He fired shots up into the air, over the tree, over where these people were to get the threat to stop.”
Larkin told jurors that Kelly was confronted with “a threat to his life” and “had a rifle pointed at him,” meaning that he would have been justified in using deadly physical force.
But even so, the rancher “didn’t use deadly physical force,” Larkin said in her closing argument. “He fired shots up into the air, over the tree, over where these people were to get the threat to stop.”
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4232996/posts
with the info provide by Legal Insurrection.
I find it interesting that a single juror held out for a conviction. To me, that indicates a bias going in.
This whole prosecution was about the Federal Government showing the residents of Southern Arizona that illegal aliens are a preferred constituency who are above the law and to intimidate American citizens living on the border into not getting in the way of the illegal alien invasion and the cartel human and drug trafficking.
This was the most dishonest, bad faith prosecution I have seen in a very long time.
Well....Except for the 4 Trump trials and all of the J6 BS.
The cartel wants this rancher to give up and sell out.
> This was the most dishonest, bad faith prosecution I have seen in a very long time.
Until the next one.
This was the most dishonest, bad faith prosecution I have seen in a very long time.
If it’s a Rat Party DA he’ll surely be tried again.
The Kelly prosecution at least had an actual crime and a dead body associated with it.
It's just that it was a malicious prosecution of an innocent man by agenda driven Biden prosecutors.
Yep, you can bet it was one guy who wanted to stick it to the white gringo
AND NOW Biden’s DOJ will show up for the “civil rights violation” trial.
So, I assume they’ll keep trying again since the jury didn’t reach a verdict? I hope not, but I won’t hold my breath.
Or, the cartel made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.
“I find it interesting that a single juror held out for a conviction. To me, that indicates a bias going in.”
Perhaps. But were it just one juror holding out for acquittal would you say the same?
That's a good sign, this was a malicious persecution (Kangaroo Prosecution) of Kelley.
Not necessarily. Our system requires the presumption of innocence. What evidence convinced a single juror to vote for conviction? Evidence that didn’t sway the 7 other jurors.
“What evidence convinced a single juror to vote for conviction? “
People are weird. The lone juror may have thought ‘he looked guilty’ or some other non-evidentiary nonsense.
Or perhaps he/she thought that he was guilty simply because the police had arrested and prosecuted him. That used to be a prevailing opinion right here on FR not so many years ago.
I don’t recall any cases where a lone juror held out for conviction. Acquittal yes, but conviction no. I strongly suspect bias. My experience with several dozen juries makes me think that way.
3
Right. They have no proof they guy was killed by a bullet from Kelly. It’s just, “Old white guy, probably racist, shot off his gun, so he must have shot him.” That’s the sum total of the state’s evidence.
Alone sure was a hold out for guilty? I wonder what her name is.
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.