AZ - Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea, allegedly shot and killed with an AK-47 by rancher George Alan Kelly, 75, Kino Springs, Jan 2023

[Cool Cats]

Kelly IS a suspect, not a "possible suspect", he's been charged, far more than being a "suspect". Also we haven't heard all the evidence. We don't know if they can prove it was a bullet from Kelly.

The main thing I have said over and over, imo, it was an accident (due to recklessness or bitterness taking over his mind and maybe loss of physical control, for the reasons we've laid out, loss of value of land, failure at tourism, combined with disdain for immigrants, etc),

and that he will get off no matter what the evidence, jmo.

I wonder if this goes to trial if the jury will be able to consider lesser charges like reckless endangerment for example. If it was his gun that shot the fatal bullet I agree it could have been accidental. When you shoot several times in the direction of a group of people you might hit somebody you never meant to hit.

If this is the case it sounds like reckless endangerment. Not second degree murder.

There needs to be proof that his gun shot the fatal bullet or he should walk. "Might have been" his gun leaves reasonable doubt.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Following this from Canada has proven difficult at times since many links are blocked. Based on what I've been able to read, and the comments here, it strikes me that this case appears to be (from the prosecution's side) a matter of looking for evidence to support a theory (i.e., of course he's guilty, he hates illegal immigrants, or something, therefore he's a murderer), instead of letting the actual evidence tell the story.

jmo

Replying to myself to ask member @pentimento what it was about this post that prompted you to post the laughing emoji? I wasn't attempting to be humorous, and I'm unsure what's funny about one man dead and another man facing murder charges. Frankly I find the entire case a brutal tragedy, for both families directly affected.

 

[SteveS]

Kelly IS a suspect, not a "possible suspect", he's been charged, far more than being a "suspect". Also we haven't heard all the evidence. We don't know if they can prove it was a bullet from Kelly.

The main thing I have said over and over, imo, it was an accident (due to his recklessness or bitterness taking over his mind and maybe his physical control, for the reasons we've laid out, loss of value of land, failure at tourism, combined with disdain for immigrants, etc),

and that he will get off no matter what the evidence, jmo.

Yes, it's fair to call Kelly a suspect. He's certainly regarded as one by the JP court.

But I prefer to call him a possible suspect because IMO he's mostly a suspect only because of the lack of a full and unbiased investigation, and a kangaroo court of a JP hearing. I think they don't want to face how weak and unconvincing their evidence is, so they forced it through and kept him from having a chance to challenge it at all. You can't read the motion without being alarmed by all the massive inconsistencies and holes in the supposed evidence - and the hasty lack of due process as well. I have to seriously question whether Kelly shot the guy.

You make the point that "we haven't heard all the evidence" but the problem is, they aren't allowed to have secret evidence that the defense hasn't been given. If they had a bullet tying Kelly to the death, defense should know and that JP court was time and place to claim it and show he's probably the guy who did this. None of that happened.

There's much more ahead. The hearing is today on whether the JP court indicted with basically nothing. Let's see how the prosecution responds, and what evidence (if any) they offer up.

 

[NuttMegg]

I wonder if this goes to trial if the jury will be able to consider lesser charges like reckless endangerment for example. If it was his gun that shot the fatal bullet I agree it could have been accidental. When you shoot several times in the direction of a group of people you might hit somebody you never meant to hit.

If this is the case it sounds like reckless endangerment. Not second degree murder.

There needs to be proof that his gun shot the fatal bullet or he should walk. "Might have been" his gun leaves reasonable doubt.

ETA: Maybe they couldn't charge him with reckless endangerment because someone DID die?

Maybe that is what it will end up as. It seems terribly insensitive to call it just reckless endangerment from the get go. Even a year or two in jail would be a substantial punishment for a man his age.

Sounds like it could be a class 6 felony, routinely a misdemeanor except that someone died. Here it says it would be a felony with just RISK of death.


Arizona's Reckless Endangerment Law (A.R.S. § 13-1201 ) -- Feldman | Royle

Reckless Endangerment Defined​

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1201, you are guilty of the crime of reckless endangerment is you:

• Recklessly endanger someone else with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury.

A person can be convicted of either felony reckless endangerment or misdemeanor reckless endangerment. The difference between misdemeanor and felony endangerment involves the type of outcome that your behavior would have likely resulted in. Felony reckless endangerment involves a risk of death where misdemeanor endangerment involves only the risk of physical injury.

 

[Cool Cats]

ETA: Maybe they couldn't charge him with reckless endangerment because someone DID die?

Maybe that is what it will end up as. It seems terribly insensitive to call it just reckless endangerment from the get go. Even a year or two in jail would be a substantial punishment for a man his age.

Sounds like it could be a class 6 felony, routinely a misdemeanor except that someone died. Here it says it would be a felony with just RISK of death.


Arizona's Reckless Endangerment Law (A.R.S. § 13-1201 ) -- Feldman | Royle

Reckless Endangerment Defined​

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1201, you are guilty of the crime of reckless endangerment is you:

• Recklessly endanger someone else with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury.

A person can be convicted of either felony reckless endangerment or misdemeanor reckless endangerment. The difference between misdemeanor and felony endangerment involves the type of outcome that your behavior would have likely resulted in. Felony reckless endangerment involves a risk of death where misdemeanor endangerment involves only the risk of physical injury.

I was just using reckless endangerment as an example. Could be manslaughter. Something less than 2nd degree murder should be considered (in my opinion) for the jury. This is pretty standard.

Let the jury decide the charge. They could be fairer that this overbearing prosecutor. I think the lack of an investigation shows incompetence. Not just for the defendant, but the victim deserves a thorough investigation. This isn't just for George Kelly.

This is for justice. Getting justice is why I follow trials.

 

[SteveS]

Maybe that is what it will end up as. It seems terribly insensitive to call it just reckless endangerment from the get go. Even a year or two in jail would be a substantial punishment for a man his age.

Sounds like it could be a class 6 felony, routinely a misdemeanor except that someone died. Here it says it would be a felony with just RISK of death.


Arizona's Reckless Endangerment Law (A.R.S. § 13-1201 ) -- Feldman | Royle

Reckless Endangerment Defined​

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1201, you are guilty of the crime of reckless endangerment is you:

• Recklessly endanger someone else with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury.

A person can be convicted of either felony reckless endangerment or misdemeanor reckless endangerment. The difference between misdemeanor and felony endangerment involves the type of outcome that your behavior would have likely resulted in. Felony reckless endangerment involves a risk of death where misdemeanor endangerment involves only the risk of physical injury.

That's a very reasonable analysis imo. I have thought it could end up with something like this (an accident, and recklessness), if ....

I first think everything hinges on whether they can even show proof the dead man was shot by Kelly (his bullet). And I'm skeptical so far. I don't think they have any evidence of that. There is no secret evidence. Kelly's defense would know if there's a bullet to be tested, so that they can hire their own tester too. Without proof, I don't think Kelly can be reasonably charged at all as the shooter.

Then if they get THAT far, for a super-severe charge, it still has to be demonstrated that Kelly knowingly and willingly tried to kill someone.

But from that far away, and with presumably a very iffy line of sight, how can that be proven? It's way more likely that - if Kelly shot him - it was a stray bullet with Kelly not even knowing the guy was there. You can't say he saw, then say he didn't, where it's convenient. This isn't a football field, but rather a setting with trees and bushes obscuring what can be seen and what is where, from what we know.

But then, if we are at the "reckless' endangerment" level, a jury still has to decide if it was more due to Kelly's recklessness, or the recklessness of the dead man for invading Kelly's property without permission and putting himself in harm's way, or a mix of both ...

...Unless (and perhaps this is the state's thinking in so massively overcharging with such iffy evidence), the state can scare Kelly into accepting a plea deal and not have to prove a case.

 

[NuttMegg]

I was just using reckless endangerment as an example. Could be manslaughter. Something less than 2nd degree murder should be considered (in my opinion) for the jury. This is pretty standard.

Let the jury decide the charge. They could be fairer that this overbearing prosecutor. I think the lack of an investigation shows incompetence. Not just for the defendant, but the victim deserves a thorough investigation. This isn't just for George Kelly.

This is for justice. Getting justice is why I follow trials.

Don't they propose any alternative lesser charges later in the process, if they choose to? Not sure, but I think so.

 

[Cool Cats]

That's a very reasonable analysis imo. I have thought it could end up with something like this (an accident, and recklessness), if ....

I first think everything hinges on whether they can even show proof the dead man was shot by Kelly (his bullet). And I'm skeptical so far. I don't think they have any evidence of that. There is no secret evidence. Kelly's defense would know if there's a bullet to be tested, so that they can hire their own tester too. Without proof, I don't think Kelly can be reasonably charged at all as the shooter.

Then if they get THAT far, for a super-severe charge, it still has to be demonstrated that Kelly knowingly and willingly tried to kill someone.

But from that far away, and with presumably a very iffy line of sight, how can that be proven? It's way more likely that - if Kelly shot him - it was a stray bullet with Kelly not even knowing the guy was there. You can't say he saw, then say he didn't, where it's convenient. This isn't a football field, but rather a setting with trees and bushes obscuring what can be seen and what is where, from what we know.

But then, if we are at the "reckless' endangerment" level, a jury still has to decide if it was more due to Kelly's recklessness, or the recklessness of the dead man for invading Kelly's property without permission and putting himself in harm's way, or a mix of both ...

...Unless (and perhaps this is the state's thinking in so massively overcharging with such iffy evidence), the state can scare Kelly into accepting a plea deal and not have to prove a case.

Quote:

Unless (and perhaps this is the state's thinking in so massively overcharging with such iffy evidence), the state can scare Kelly into accepting a plea deal and not have to prove a case.

Wow! Absolutely prosecutors are always doing this! Overcharging and piling on multiple charges - both happening in this case - so that the defendant will plead guilty to a lesser charge and then they drop the other charges.

A plea deal is a possibility. Interesting.

Most defendants take a plea and do not go to trial. Our Justice system is turning into a convenience system.

 

[PrairieWind]

Today is not the trial. It's a (preliminary) hearing. One of the issues to be aired is whether it even heads to trial at all.

If you want to follow the process first-hand, here's the schedule step by step. I think you can click on the link and see the actual court hearing, when the time comes.

State of Arizona Vs. George A. Kelly - CR-23-0026 | Santa Cruz County, AZ - Official Website

High-Interest Case

santacruzcountyaz.gov

This is a hearing, but not a "Preliminary Hearing." That term is a specific legal term. This appears to be Arraignment into District Court.

 

[PrairieWind]

Kelly IS a suspect, not a "possible suspect", he's been charged, far more than being a "suspect". He's not some vaguely-defined POI. Also we haven't heard all the evidence. We don't know if they can prove it was a bullet from Kelly.

The main thing I have said over and over, imo, it was an accident (due to recklessness or bitterness taking over his mind and maybe loss of physical control, for the reasons we've laid out, loss of value of land, failure at tourism, combined with disdain for immigrants, etc),

and that he will get off no matter what the evidence, jmo.

Before we ever get to state of mind or motivation, the State has to show that the Defendant is the one that shot the deceased. I'm failing to see how they do that. That is why the Defense is demanding a do-over on the Preliminary Hearing. This is procedurally already a bit of a mess.

 

[NuttMegg]

dup

 

[NuttMegg]

Before we ever get to state of mind or motivation, the State has to show that the Defendant is the one that shot the deceased. I'm failing to see how they do that. That is why the Defense is demanding a do-over on the Preliminary Hearing. This is procedurally already a bit of a mess.

Maybe someone else in the house shot the gun? Maybe both AKs were used, one from closer up for instance. Maybe husband/ wife stories differ drastically. Why was one shell casing found first, and then 8 more? How far apart were those casing sites? There is not enough evidence presented to us, so far, to say they can't prove gun....bullet.

 

[wary]

Before we ever get to state of mind or motivation, the State has to show that the Defendant is the one that shot the deceased. I'm failing to see how they do that. That is why the Defense is demanding a do-over on the Preliminary Hearing. This is procedurally already a bit of a mess.

Are you aware of any cases where the Defense DOES get a do-over on the preliminary hearing?

Do you see them getting anywhere with the argument that they didn’t have enough time to prepare for the change from 1st degree charges, to 2nd degree?

 

[Eli9]

I've never seen a court site that has a special page for 'High Interest Cases'. I found that interesting.

High Interest Cases | Santa Cruz County, AZ - Official Website

High Interest Cases

www.santacruzcountyaz.gov

 

[NuttMegg]

Are you aware of any cases where the Defense DOES get a do-over on the preliminary hearing?

Do you see them getting anywhere with the argument that they didn’t have enough time to prepare for the change from 1st degree charges, to 2nd degree?

The defense atty was arguing that defending against 2nd deg murder charges was harder than defending against 1st degree. <<eye roll icon>>

 

[NuttMegg]

dup

 

[PrairieWind]

Are you aware of any cases where the Defense DOES get a do-over on the preliminary hearing?

Do you see them getting anywhere with the argument that they didn’t have enough time to prepare for the change from 1st degree charges, to 2nd degree?

I don't think I have ever seen that in my personal experience. This varies by state, but procedurally it gets to be a mess. I think the defendant has a good argument that they were not given an opportunity to prepare for the preliminary hearing because the prosecutor amended the charges last minute. I really don't see why the PH wasn't continued at that time.

 

[PrairieWind]

The defense atty was arguing that defending against 2nd deg murder charges was harder than defending against 1st degree. <<eye roll icon>>

No. You are missing the point. 2nd Degree presents a different theory of the case than 1st Degree. It is a different charge.

 

[NuttMegg]

No. You are missing the point. 2nd Degree presents a different theory of the case than 1st Degree. It is a different charge.

IIRC she argued that it was harder, not that it was a different theory.

 

[PrairieWind]

IIRC she argued that it was harder, not that it was a different theory.

It arguably is indeed more difficult. But the point is that it wasn't the charge that they had prepared to defend at the preliminary hearing. If they prosecutor was amending the charges, they should have just done so, and had a new advisement of the charges and reset the PH.