PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court refused Tuesday to set aside a nearly $100,000 verdict against a Douglas rancher who was found guilty of illegally imprisoning several members of a family.
|
|
His attorney, Dave Hardy, also argued that there were technical errors committed at the trial and that the verdict was based on prejudice and passion. And he said there was no way that Barnett could be guilty of unlawful imprisonment, saying his client told the family to “get off my land.’’
Hardy said the decision ends that case, as there is no legal opportunity to seek review in federal court.
But it does not end Barnett’s problems with the legal system: He is scheduled to go on trial next year in federal court in connection with a separate incident where illegal immigrants have accused him of violating their civil rights and of kicking one of them.
The issue at Tuesday lawsuit stems from claims by Ronald Morales that Barnett threatened his family and a friend of his daughter while they were hunting. Barnett said they were on his private cattle ranch, a claim Morales disputed.
According to Morales, he told Barnett he could not go until his son and daughter returned. He said Barnett threatened to shoot him if he did not leave immediately.
An investigation by a sheriff’s deputy resulted in no charges.
In upholding the verdict Tuesday, the high court agreed with written decision by the Court of Appeals which said there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Barnett was guilty.
As a threshold issue, the appellate court said it appeared that the Morales family was on state-owned land that Barnett lease for cattle grazing. The judges said that, as a general matter, hunters have a right to be on state land.
They also said that the testimony about Barnett raising his rifle as if to take aim at the family and his following the family for some distance supports the finding of unlawful imprisonment.
That’s because Barnett intended to force the family to submit to his control and that the Morales, because they had no choice, had to do as Barnett commanded.
The other case stems from a 2004 incident where the plaintiff claim 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’s brother, Donald, also is named in some of the allegations.
Hardy attempted to get a federal judge to throw out that case contending that Roger and his wife, Barbara, were checking for damage on their 22,000-acre ranch, and responding to barking by their dog.
He also argued there is no actual evidence of race-based animus - - which is covered by the civil rights law — but only that the plaintiffs entered the country illegally.
But U.S. District Court Judge John Roll said there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy, that the conspiracy denied the plaintiffs their right to interstate travel, and the actions of the Barnetts were motivated by race to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. And Roll rejected Hardy’s contention that the Barnetts could not be charged with violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights of equal protection under the law because they interfered with their right of interstate travel.
Comments
Alex Puskas wrote on Mar 7, 2009 2:38 PM:
In my experience,people with this mindset have no idea about what is actually fair.They believe that what ever they,or others that they are sympathetic toward,have the right to break as many laws and infringe on as many other peoples rights as they need or want to ,to achieve their goals.It is NOT,however,okay with them for any one who disagrees with them to take any action or even voice their opinion without having unfounded and unwarranted accusations of being prejudiced or conspiratorial thrown against them.
It is simply and clearly an age old example disinformation and accusing the people who want to put an end to their own crimes by accusing them of the same crimes.
If there is any prejudice or conspiracy here,it is initiated and by those who are doing anything within their power to break the law by entering this country illegally and by those who support this illegal action by supporting the non-existent rights and actions of these individuals.
They,then twist the truth when they accuse people like Mr.Barnett of being conspiratorial in order to throw the attention of the public into another direction and away from the real problem.
Well,it seems to work less and less,all the time.The legal citizenry of this country is starting to wise up to this more and more and with each incident the true culprits are bringing the end to their nonsense closer.
I have one question.
Why is no one applauding Mr.Barnett as a humanitarian for not shooting trespassers when he catches them on the parts of his land that HE owns does NOT LEASE?
Does he own any of the ranch or does he lease it all?
If he does own it does he not have the legal right to keep it clear of trespassers and law breakers by what ever force he deems necessary?
If so,then his patience and willingness to be fair and peaceful should be applauded and any who suggest the opposite should simply be ignored as it is not even worthy of they attention required to argue against it.
Wake up,guys,we see into your agenda and it will not see fruition.
AP "
Henry Eugene Acedo wrote on Sep 30, 2008 9:10 PM:
Hector wrote on Sep 28, 2008 6:15 PM:
Joe wrote on Sep 27, 2008 9:00 AM:
Finally wrote on Sep 26, 2008 11:48 AM: