BISBEE — Attorneys for U.S. Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Corbett have filed a motion for change of venue for his upcoming murder trial scheduled to be held in federal court in Tucson.

The motion asks Judge David Bury for an order “transferring this case to United States District Court in Phoenix because of ongoing pretrial and trial publicity and the inability of the defendant to get a fair trial in a district court located near Arizona’s border with Mexico.”

Corbett is charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide for fatally shooting Francisco Dominguez-Rivera, a Mexican who had illegally entered the U.S. near Naco last year.

Corbett claimed he acted out of self-defense when he shot Dominguez-Rivera. Prosecutors claimed the shooting was not justified. Bury declared a mistrial because the jury was deadlocked at the conclusion of a trial held from Feb. 26 to March 7 in U.S. District Court in Tucson. A new trial is scheduled to start Sept. 9 in that same court.

Last week, Jim Calle, one of Corbett’s defense attorneys, filed a motion requesting permission to file a non-electronic exhibit, including a DVD with electronic copies of news segments of comments made after the trial, with a motion for change of venue. Bury granted that motion.

Calle filed the motion for change of venue on Sunday. The motion and related documents, which total 122 pages long, list numerous examples of media coverage of the Corbett case, as well as general articles on the mission and activities of Border Patrol by the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review, Daily Dispatch in Douglas, Arizona Daily Star, Associated Press, KOLD News 13 in Tucson, KGUN TV-9 in Tucson and KVOA TV-4 in Tucson.

For example, the motion states that on March 10, Isabel Garcia, the Pima County Legal Defender, appeared on TV-13, and in the context of the Corbett case, equated the treatment of illegal entrants to the maltreatment of slaves freed after the Civil War.

“Ms. Garcia’s inflammatory comments clearly suggested that Corbett had killed the decedent with total impunity and that justice would only be done if he was found guilty,” the motion states.

Also after the trial, the motion states, lead special prosecutor Grant Woods commented to media that new information regarding prior incidents would be introduced in Corbett’s retrial that would show: “You are not dealing with a Border Patrol agent who simply got mad and made a big mistake one time. You are dealing with someone who has a pattern to this.”

The motion states, “Since the alleged acts are not admissible, the only reason for Woods to speak of them is to tar and feather the defendant in the public as a serial criminal offender in the hope of prejudicing the jury pool and swaying them towards a conviction during the next trial.”

The motion also cites general coverage of border and immigration issues, such as an Arizona Daily Star story published Dec. 9, 2007, that proclaimed “ ‘Deadliest migrant trail in U.S.’ is right on Tucson’s doorstep.” The story covered an important issue, “but it also served to inflame the passions of people with innumerable opinions and positions” about border issues, according to the motion.

Also, the motion makes reference to an article from the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review quoting two people after the trial that demonstrates how immigration issues frame a person’s point of view regarding Corbett’s guilt or innocence.

Cecile Lumer of Citizens for Border Solutions, a Bisbee group that is part of the No More Deaths Coalition, said a conviction in this case is important. “We are glad there is going to be a retrial,” she said, according to the article. “We feel that if he is freed, it says to the Border Patrol that you can do whatever you want and you can kill people.”

Al Garza, national executive director of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said he does not think Corbett’s case should be in court. “If our federal government had done what it was supposed to do, we wouldn’t have this aftereffect,” he said, according to the article. “The borders are wide open, and they are dangerous. These guys in the Border Patrol are constantly suffering the consequences of the dangerous elements that exist throughout the borders.”

Also, the motion points out that Border Action Network displayed a memorial honoring the victim in front of the courthouse during the Corbett trial. It says jurors walked by the “spectacle” on the way to the courthouse and even “endured” comments from protestors. The motion states that similar coercive activity will take place if the trial is held in Tucson or elsewhere in Southern Arizona.

Calle declined to make any comments on the motion for change of venue. In an e-mail to the Herald/Review, Woods said, “We really have no preference as to where this case is tried.”

“I am confident that we can get a fair trial based upon the facts from a Southern Arizona jury, and that is all we ask,” Woods said.

“We will join with the defense in requesting a detailed questionnaire from potential jurors to make sure everything is fair to both sides.”