How is a Justice of the Peace presiding over this case? Kent
I don't know Kent - will ask Maddy. I have seen cases above the traffic level first noted before a JP in less populated areas of some AZ counties and were probably moved into the DA/county judge sphere later/eventually. Santa Cruz is a very small county compared to the others, and their county judge/judges can't be located very far distant. This event was probably closer to Patagonia or one of the other little places east of Nogales and maybe the Sheriff was looking for the closest judge - but seems odd that the case would have stayed there, especially with the setting of $1 mil bail. ??? Local political maneuvering.??? Hard to tell right now.
How is a Justice of the Peace presiding over this case?
Kent
It’s just a first appearance. He informs the defendant of the possible charges, and sets the initial bond. This appearance generally must occur within 24 to 48 hours of arrest depending upon the state.
From here it will proceed in front of a district or circuit judge, or whatever Arizona calls the equivalent. He’ll get plenty of opportunities to have his bond lowered and might not even be charged with murder in the end. The charging decision will be up to a DA.
How is a Justice of the Peace presiding over this case?
Kent
It’s just a first appearance. He informs the defendant of the possible charges, and sets the initial bond. This appearance generally must occur within 24 to 48 hours of arrest depending upon the state.
From here it will proceed in front of a district or circuit judge, or whatever Arizona calls the equivalent. He’ll get plenty of opportunities to have his bond lowered and might not even be charged with murder in the end. The charging decision will be up to a DA.
Yes, but it's been 10 days and a national story, and now it's two more weeks... don't make sense on such a high profile case.
How is a Justice of the Peace presiding over this case?
Kent
It’s just a first appearance. He informs the defendant of the possible charges, and sets the initial bond. This appearance generally must occur within 24 to 48 hours of arrest depending upon the state.
From here it will proceed in front of a district or circuit judge, or whatever Arizona calls the equivalent. He’ll get plenty of opportunities to have his bond lowered and might not even be charged with murder in the end. The charging decision will be up to a DA.
Yes, but it's been 10 days and a national story, and now it's two more weeks... don't make sense on such a high profile case.
Kent
Not unusual at all. He was supposed to go to court today. It would have been his first appearance in front of an actual judge most likely. If charges have actually been filed, it was an arraignment. But I would be surprised, unless things are pretty clear cut if charges have been filed yet or if a decision has been made on exactly what he will be charged with in the end. His attorney could have also requested lower home today.
PHOENIX (AP) — An Arizona judge declared a mistrial Monday in the case of a rancher accused of fatally shooting a Mexican man on his property near the U.S.-Mexico border.
The decision came after jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision after more than two full days of deliberation in trial of George Alan Kelly, 75, who was charged with second-degree murder in the Jan. 30, 2023, shooting of Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea.
“Based upon the jury’s inability to reach a verdict on any count,” Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink said, “This case is in mistrial.”
The Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office can still decide whether to retry Kelly for any charge, or drop the case all together.
A status hearing was scheduled for next Monday afternoon, when prosecutors could inform the judge if they plan to refile the case. Prosecutors did not immediately respond to emailed requests for additional comment.
Kelly was charged with second-degree murder in killing of Cuen-Buitimea, 48, who lived just south of the border in Nogales, Mexico.
Prosecutors said Kelly recklessly fired nine shots from an AK-47 rifle toward a group of men, including Cuen-Buitimea, about 100 yards (90 meters) away on his cattle ranch. Kelly has said he fired warning shots in the air, but he didn’t shoot directly at anyone.
Court officials took jurors to Kelly’s ranch as well as a section of the border. Fink denied news media requests to tag along.
After Monday’s ruling, Consul General Marcos Moreno Baez of the Mexican consulate in Nogales, Arizona, said he would wait with Cuen-Buitimea’s two adult daughters on Monday evening to meet with prosecutors from Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office to learn about the implications of a mistrial.
“Mexico will continue to follow the case and continue to accompany the family, which wants justice.” said Moreno. “We hope for a very fair outcome.”
Kelly’s defense attorney Brenna Larkin did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment after the ruling was issued. Larkin had asked Fink to have jurors keep deliberating another day.
Kelly had earlier rejected an agreement with prosecutors that would have reduced the charge to one count of negligent homicide if he pleaded guilty.
Kelly was also charged with aggravated assault that day against another person in the group of about eight people, including a man from Honduras who was living in Mexico and who testified during the trial that he had gone into the U.S. that day seeking work.
The other migrants weren’t injured and they all made it back to Mexico.
Cuen-Buitimea lived just south of the border in Nogales, Mexico. He had previously entered the U.S. illegally several times and was deported, most recently in 2016, court records show.
The nearly monthlong trial coincided with a presidential election year that has drawn widespread interest in border security.
Fink had told jurors that if they could not reach a verdict on the second-degree murder charge, they could try for a unanimous decision on a lesser charge of reckless manslaughter or negligent homicide. A second-degree murder conviction would have brought a minimum prison sentence of 10 years.
The jury got the case Thursday afternoon, deliberated briefly that day and then all of Friday and Monday.
I can't believe the DA pursued this anyway with no evidence tying Kelly to to the killing. No accurate time of death, no bullet to tie to Kelly's rifle, and the deceased was "a frequent visitor to the US". Frequent as in 'coyote'? Frequent as in 'mule'? Seven not guilty's, and one guilty. DA needs to build his career on a case with some actual forensic evidence.
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
With 7-1 in his favor, I wonder if he'll be retried. That might be a political decision. If he just keeps his mouth shut and goes on with his life, he might be OK. Unless something changes, it seems that a future conviction is not likely.
If the DA has any sense at all he'll let it go. This never should've come to this. The DA should've no billed him to start with. They don't even know that the man even actually shot the person in the first place. He might've admitted to firing a shot but that doesn't mean he was actually shooting at that particular person. This has been another leftist farce from the beginning.
This is local - next (small) county smack on the border with Mex. Lots of nutty local political pressure.
General local consensus - rancher should never have been charged/tried. Evidence is poor to none. Politically sensitive prosecutor may not be principled/sensible/smart enough to drop it before he does stupid again.
IN my best Spanish at this moment.....................
Si se moleste el toro..............................
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
Santa Cruz County is a sanctuary county. They may not have declared it officially but thats how it is. No surprise the SO and county attorney are pursuing this relentlessly. They will bankrupt this guy, destroy his life and make an example of him before they let it go.
Presumably, the man knows enough to keep his mouth shut and not discuss the case with anyone other than his lawyer or maybe his wife. He doesn't need to be out making statements or online posts that could be used as evidence in a new trial.
"Kelly’s defense attorney Brenna Larkin did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment after the ruling was issued. Larkin had asked Fink to have jurors keep deliberating another day."
If it'd been 7-1 guilty, it damn sure woulda gone farther with the jury.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/NjTLxLsQ/George-Kelly-1.jpg)
