MISTRIAL AZ - Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea, shot and killed with AK-47, rancher George Alan Kelly charged, Kino Springs, Jan 2023 #2

[fred&edna]

Mexican consulate sure wants a retrial, of course.


“They will continue to seek justice, and we are confident that justice shall prevail in this case,” he said. “All the evidence was portrayed and it’s public,” he said.

“And that shows that there was a clear fact in which Mr. Cuen Buitimea was walking, unarmed, and was shot in the back by a high caliber weapon.”

jmo- But, "all that evidence" did NOT prove Mr Kelly shot Cuen Buitimea.

Family of slain migrant still seeks justice after mistrial

The Mexican consul in Nogales says the family of a Mexican man killed on the property of Nogales rancher George Alan Kelly is still hoping for justice, after the case ended in a mistrial.

news.azpm.org

 

[Cryptic]

Mexican consulate sure wants a retrial, of course.

Family of slain migrant still seeks justice after mistrial

The Mexican consul in Nogales says the family of a Mexican man killed on the property of Nogales rancher George Alan Kelly is still hoping for justice, after the case ended in a mistrial.

news.azpm.org

My bet is that it is going to be retried.

In the end, most counties will try a second time if the family of the deceased requests unless they deeply believe that they already made their best effort prosecutor talent wise and the state is not sending a special prosecutor.

Its the third time that they start to get hesitant, very hesitant.

 

[shotgun09]

Despite the 7-1 defeat, I am thinking they will for a second retrial, but never a third.

As a distant side note, the initial prosecution of this self defense case also went very badly (10-2 for aquittal). The trial was in Texas- where there can be a tilt towards accepting self defense claims.

But.... when the family insisted on a retrial, prosecutors regrouped by replacing both initial prosecutors with an experienced prosecutor who had actual "knock down, drag out" court experience in tough, actively contested cases.
The next jury went 12-0 for a conviction.

In the end, I would like to now the actual trial experience of the prosecutors in "round one"? Where they:
- A. highly experienced in paper plea bargain agreements with some experience in actual trials of the "slam dunk" variety?
- B. Were they already experienced in trials that are truly and skillfully contested?

If "A", I think they are going to re-assign and try again.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/houston-dennys-chokehold-death-sentence/index.html

It is my belief that Kim Hunley from the state, has an experienced and successful background as a defense attorney for over 20 years. She is not at all inexperienced.
In her defense , this might have been her first trial going up against a previous MMA champ ( Larkin )...so there's that.

 

[fred&edna]

It is my belief that Kim Hunley from the state, has an experienced and successful background as a defense attorney for over 20 years. She is not at all inexperienced.
In her defense , this might have been her first trial going up against a previous MMA champ ( Larkin )...so there's that.

Larkin's my first girl crush, lol! (MMA & law school summacumlaude graduate - that's a 1-2 punch right there!)

 

[Cryptic]

In her defense , this might have been her first trial going up against a previous MMA champ ( Larkin )...so there's that.

After this beat down, I would be making quiet requests for uhmm "heavy weight" assistance from Phoenix in regards to a special assistant prosecutor.

In the end, Hunley maybe an experienced fighter, but she really does not have time to go though extensive additional training before a second fight. Rather, she essentially needs to fight with her available skills. And those ended 7-1.

In the end, and in everything, champions are champions for reasons. Thinking Larkin is a dual champion and it takes another champion to have a shot against her.

 

[fred&edna]

 

[shotgun09]

Sadly, as much as I would like this all to be over for the Kelly's, and for the state to decide to drop all charges and not re-try him....I see Kim Hunley like a dog with a bone. She is NOT going to give this up. Look back in the prelim stages, when they first charged him with 1st Deg Murder. She wants this win. She wants this to be true. She will probably continue.
DRR aka DRV is probably being taught his left from right, and East from West as we speak. MOO

 

[shotgun09]

Another reason why I think Kim Hunley will go for a retrial ?

She wants another "bite" at impeaching Wanda Kelly. She failed miserably in this trial to get Mrs Kelly to say what she wanted. She had almost 6 hours with her on the stand, and was not able to.

Hunley requested to recall her towards the end of the trial, and was shot down by the judge.

IMO, she is rabidly salivating to put this suffering,frightened, and hearing impaired older woman back up on the stand. No matter how bad it makes her ( KH ) look.

 

[fred&edna]

It's going to be a long day.

 

[shotgun09]

It's going to be a long day.

Hoping someone will be covering this hearing.

 

[shotgun09]

I am looking for coverage on the hearing.
Look what I found, from KVOA reporter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1785030952311537928

 

[fred&edna]

FREE!!!

 

[shotgun09]

Hooray!

 

[shotgun09]

I am always confused on the 'with' or 'without predjudice' clause. One or the other means the state can return to file charges at another time. See Suzanne Morphew thread. I also believe that the judge has to agree with the state, in order to do that

 

[fred&edna]

I am always confused on the 'with' or 'without predjudice' clause. One or the other means the state can return to file charges at another time. See Suzanne Morphew thread. I also believe that the judge has to agree with the state, in order to do that

Same here... I get that with/without predjudice thing confused every time. But, giving him his property back (that was used to prosecute him) is a good sign as it will be tough to ever get it back to re-try.

 

[bobbymkii]

I am always confused on the 'with' or 'without predjudice' clause. One or the other means the state can return to file charges at another time. See Suzanne Morphew thread. I also believe that the judge has to agree with the state, in order to do that

(AFAIK, IANAL) "with prejudice" is the equivalent in legal terms of a jury unanimously returning a verdict of not guilty, but "without prejudice" means that the charge can stay on the file as unproven, and no double jeapordy privelege applies if a decision is taken to retry?

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

w/o prejudice = can be retried
w/prejudice = cannot be retried, final

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

“Because of the unique circumstances and challenges surrounding this case, the Santa Cruz County Attorney's Office has decided not to seek a retrial," Deputy County Attorney Kimberly Hunley told Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink on Monday.

Fink agreed to dismiss the case. He said a hearing would be scheduled later to determine if it would be dismissed with prejudice, which would mean it couldn't be brought back to court.

George Kelly: Prosecutors will not re-try Arizona rancher accused of murder

Prosecutors opted not to re-try the Southern Arizona rancher a week after a mistrial was declared. George Kelly was charged with second-degree murder in the 2023 shooting of a Mexican national.

www.fox10phoenix.com

 

[shotgun09]

“Because of the unique circumstances and challenges surrounding this case, the Santa Cruz County Attorney's Office has decided not to seek a retrial," Deputy County Attorney Kimberly Hunley told Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink on Monday.

Fink agreed to dismiss the case. He said a hearing would be scheduled later to determine if it would be dismissed with prejudice, which would mean it couldn't be brought back to court.

George Kelly: Prosecutors will not re-try Arizona rancher accused of murder

Prosecutors opted not to re-try the Southern Arizona rancher a week after a mistrial was declared. George Kelly was charged with second-degree murder in the 2023 shooting of a Mexican national.

www.fox10phoenix.com

I believe the term "unique circumstances" really means...
" We have absolutely NOTHING to prove his guilt "
But, that's just me...

The state is ordered to give back his AK !! And, other weapons confiscated. All their property will be returned to the Kelly's. Even Wanda's phone. They will never retry him with that move. That evidence cannot come back into play, years later. So, what evidence will they have, if they ever return to trial?
The picture of GCB lying face down and DRR's total bogus story is what they will have. The SCSO LE will be decimated if they even try to re-create another concocted story, after their complete failures.

But, sure Jan....go ahead and ask for dismissal without prejudice.

Ultimately, I believe..this is left up to Judge Fink to make a ruling on. And sadly, he was one to agree to go ahead with this trial to begin with. He knew then, that the proposed evidence was sketch, and ripe with inconsistencies. He knew that the "witness" ( DRR/V ) was sketch. He also confirmed this 'knowing' IMO, by suddenly and drastically stopping the defense on cross on day 12 of the trial. It will be interesting, what he ultimately decides.

MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

Thank God