Federal appellate judges have refused to overturn the civil verdict against a Cochise County rancher found guilty of illegally imprisoning 16 border crossers.
In a brief and unsigned opinion, the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments by Roger Barnett that the Tucson jury which found him liable should have been told by the trial judge that they could consider his claim of self defense.
The judges said Arizona law allows someone to use or threaten to use physical force against another when a reasonable person would believe that is necessary to protect against the other party's use or attempted use of physical force.
"(Barnett) himself conceded on the stand, however, that none of the plaintiffs were armed or threatened him in any other way," the appellate judges wrote. That, they said, makes any claim of self-defense unwarranted.
Attorney David Hardy said that conclusion ignored the evidence presented at trial.
"The testimony showed Roger had been told by federal agents his life was in danger from the drug cartels," Hardy said. "He's outnumbered 20-to-1 in the desert, he doesn't know if they're smugglers or not."
Hardy said while Barnett had drawn his weapon, that was before he found out the immigrants were unarmed and not threatening.
"And according to his testimony, then he holsters his pistol once he knows that," the attorney said.
Hardy acknowledged that the immigrants testified to the contrary about Barnett having his weapon. But he said that made it a question of fact which the jury should have been allowed to decide.
In the new ruling, the appellate judges also said there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that the plaintiffs suffered "severe emotional distress."
They said nothing in Arizona law requires someone to incur a physical injury to make that claim. And they noted each of the plaintiffs testified about ongoing anxiety, depression and insomnia.
The case stems from a 2004 incident where the plaintiffs said they were captured, assaulted and unlawfully detained at gunpoint by Barnett as part of a conspiracy based on his feelings toward Latinos, and illegal entrants in particular. Barnett has said he identified 10,000 illegal border crossers in the last decade.
Hardy had argued to trial Judge John Roll there was no evidence of a conspiracy, but simply that Roger and Barbara were checking for damage on their 22,000-acre ranch, and responding to barking by their dog. He also said there is no actual evidence of race-based animus - which is covered by the law - but only that the plaintiffs entered the country illegally.
And Hardy said border crossers are not a protected class to claim civil rights violations, particularly because their status "results from their own conscious choice to break the law."
Two years ago a jury found Barnett liable on claims of assault and infliction of emotional distress, ordering him to pay $77,804 in damages.
The jurors, however, concluded Barnett did not violate the civil rights of the illegal immigrants. They also found in his favor on the claims of the immigrants on charges of battery and false imprisonment.
AZMomma posted at 3:27 pm on Fri, Feb 4, 2011.
Interesting the earlier ruling done by Judge Roll.
However, these illegal INVADERS should have been detained and immediately sent back to Mexico.
The fact that they were allowed to sue just makes my blood pressure rise dangerously.
Freethinker posted at 7:03 pm on Fri, Feb 4, 2011.
Well, the court has set the precedent.
Next time SHOOT THEM.
ArizonaRising posted at 11:53 pm on Fri, Feb 4, 2011.
And some wonder why there is an increasing 'vitriol' in the land. ...
Poorman posted at 6:10 am on Sat, Feb 5, 2011.
What did you expect comming from the 9th.Sad indeed.
Foxfire posted at 7:40 am on Sat, Feb 5, 2011.
So, The judges say it's O K for ilegals to come on you property and you are supposed to run and hide. Then the ilegals can sue you if you don't.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:57 am on Sat, Feb 5, 2011.
Freethinker, and the rest of you idiots!
Are you consulting with the Sarah Palin group? Whether 1) shooting first, then thinking later or 2) drawing a pistol and holding those targets against their will, both are illegal, repugnant to American values and just plain wrong. Can you not see how warped you thinking has become?
While shooting does have the advantage of preventing civil suits from the deceased, it does not prevent civil suits from the families of the deceased, those in Mexico who were hoping to be supported by the slave labor of their more adventurous kin. And shooting first also could make this would be vigilante - militiaman a murderer. The only thing which separated this man from his own death at the hands of Lady Justice was his lack of Slabside's 33 round magazine and the insanity of Jared Laughner to have pulled the trigger 16 times.
The jugdes did not say it was OK to be here illegally. However they did infer that where illegals are able to avail themselves of our courts to defend themselves from our propensity for domestic crime and viligantism, we Native Born Americans are not justified in breaking the law.
What to expect from the 9th Circuit, or for that matter from any other Circuit? The even handed application of the law to achieve justice for all, nothing more and nothing less.
Clearly you all expect much less.
I stand for justice. I will continue to be outspoken on this site of the falsely American value system you Neo-cons espouse. Barry Goldwater would be lecturing you soundly for these false beliefs and for your Neo-con system of justice.
EmperorSmith posted at 2:36 pm on Sat, Feb 5, 2011.
like or not stand by the constitution, rule of law Dale has his onion and I have mine but when do not stand by rule of law where are why?
PS
then are creator, kaos
Poorman posted at 3:36 pm on Sat, Feb 5, 2011.
I guess poster Whiting didn't read my post.or he can read to well. I don't think i said anything about shooting the illegal. Oh well i guess he isn't to bright.
Freethinker posted at 11:33 pm on Sat, Feb 5, 2011.
Dale Whiting wrote:
"I stand for justice"
And yet you called me and others idiots for doing just that.
I wonder how long it would take Dale to act if 16 guys in masks started vandalizing his yard and looting his house.
After all, they're unarmed!
AZMomma posted at 9:03 am on Sun, Feb 6, 2011.
Guess I just don't get the picture, or am in need of 're-educating'.
These people were TRESPASSING. I think the ranch owner had every right to detain them until LEO's arrived unless they left upon his demand and kept a wide swath around the property.
How about signs?? English and Spanish posted that this property is NO TRESPASSING, Violators will be detained and held for local LEO's.
Seems like there is NO justice for legal US Citizens anymore when it comes to the rights of vermin illegals.(Idiot censors: the term bic*hos is Spanish for vermin)
Freethinker posted at 7:06 am on Mon, Feb 7, 2011.
Dale Whiting wrote:
"I will continue to be outspoken on this site"
You will? Okay...if by "outspoken" you mean you evade and flee whenever one of your false claims is exposed as such.
But that's not what the word means. ;)