Thread: Slain U.S. judge's ruling upheld in immigrant case

Slain U.S. judge's ruling upheld in immigrant case
Bob Egelko

Friday, February 4, 2011


Share Comments (20)

(02-04) 17:18 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court has upheld $78,000 in damages to illegal immigrants who were held at gunpoint by a rancher in the southern Arizona desert, a case that prompted death threats against a federal judge who was fatally shot last month in Tucson.

U.S. District Judge John Roll was one of six people slain Jan. 8 when a gunman opened fire outside a supermarket at a crowd of constituents meeting with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was critically wounded. Jared Lee Loughner, 22, is being held in the slayings.

Roll, 63, was killed nearly three years after ruling in the case of the rancher, Roger Barnett, who found the migrants in a dry creekbed near his 22,000-acre property in March 2004. They said he had threatened to shoot them or turn his dog on them, called them racial names and kicked one of the women.

Barnett denied assaulting or threatening them but acknowledged holding them while summoning the Border Patrol.

Barnett regularly held and turned over immigrants to federal authorities. Witnesses against him in the Tucson trial included a Latino whose family, all U.S. citizens, Barnett had held at gunpoint in October 2004. Arizona courts awarded them nearly $100,000 in damages.

Sixteen people Barnett confronted in the creekbed accused him in a $32 million federal lawsuit of racially motivated assaults and harassment that violated their civil rights.

Barnett's lawyers argued that illegal immigrants could not sue for civil rights violations. But Roll, the trial judge, refused to dismiss the suit, ruling in March 2008 that the plaintiffs had presented evidence to go to trial on their claim that Barnett targeted Latinos, regardless of immigration status.

Radio talk shows took up the case, and Roll's office reported numerous death threats as the trial began in February 2009. The U.S. Marshals Service gave him round-the-clock protection during the trial.

The jury rejected the civil rights claims but awarded damages to four plaintiffs, all women, for assault, infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages for malicious conduct. Barnett argued in his appeal that Roll should have let the jury decide whether he had acted in self-defense.

"When he came across them, he didn't know who they were," attorney John Kaufmann said Friday. "They could have been coyotes (immigrant smugglers) or drug smugglers. When he didn't know who was coming upon, he had the right to pull the weapon."

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld Roll's refusal to present the self-defense issue to the jury.

Barnett acknowledged on the witness stand that "none of the plaintiffs were armed or threatened him in any way," the three-judge panel said Thursday.

Kaufmann said Barnett would seek a rehearing.

Plaintiffs lawyer Nina Perales, legal director of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the case "sends a very important message that people cannot take the law into their hands."

She said the four women had been granted U.S. visas as crime victims assisting authorities, and at least three of them have applied for legal residence.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ss.bayarea

This is a huge slap in the face of all Americans and the ranchers lawyer was a stupid ass!

Sixteen people Barnett confronted in the creekbed accused him in a $32 million federal lawsuit of racially motivated assaults and harassment that violated their civil rights.

"Violated Their Civil Rights?

Their Civil Rights are in the Country they fled from. Undocumented criminals do not have any "Civil Rights in the U.S. to be suing any citizen for $32 million dollars. What if the rancher would have been murdered by those people, would his family be awarded "$32 million" for him being unlawfully killed by a group of illegal criminals? Most likely not. Mr. Barnett has every right to protect himself and his property from illegal invasions in any ways possible.

THESE ARE TRULY SAD DAYS FOR AMERICANS IN ALL PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES. GOD BLESS US ALL.

She said the four women had been granted U.S. visas as crime victims assisting authorities, and at least three of them have applied for legal residence.

It's a crying shame that we value U.S. Citizenship so cheaply. Once the trial was over, the women should have been deported.

they have a civil right to TRESPASS on someones property? break into someones home? kill someones cattle? destroy their fences???


the rancher has a right to protect his property and all the belongings on said property.
its a sad day when an american cant protact his family or his property

but coming from the very liberal NINTH Curcuit Court, i would expect no less

Sixteen people Barnett confronted in the creekbed accused him in a $32 million federal lawsuit of racially motivated assaults and harassment that violated their civil rights.

"Violated Their Civil Rights?

Their Civil Rights are in the Country they fled from. Undocumented criminals do not have any "Civil Rights in the U.S. to be suing any citizen for $32 million dollars. What if the rancher would have been murdered by those people, would his family be awarded "$32 million" for him being unlawfully killed by a group of illegal criminals? Most likely not. Mr. Barnett has every right to protect himself and his property from illegal invasions in any ways possible. U.S. Constitution - Amendment 2:

THESE ARE TRULY SAD DAYS FOR AMERICANS IN ALL PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES. GOD BLESS US ALL.

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld Roll's refusal to present the self-defense issue to the jury.

It's absolutely amazing with all the documented violence along that border that self-defense was not allowed to be introduced to the jury. If so, the outcome at trial would have likely been different.

This is what happens when courts bend over backwards in order to rule in favor of illegal invaders. Courts give illegal invaders the breaks, resulting in decisions such as this. Disgraceful.

This decision wasn't based on judicial principles, it was based on social justice....