Arizona Republic: Not even a 2011 Arizona law written just for him could help Roger Barnett. The Arizona rancher this week lost another court ruling in a years-long lawsuit over allegations he assaulted illegal immigrants caught on his land in 2004.
"We hope this will be the final chapter in Barnett's attempts to avoid paying his victims the judgment that is long overdue," David Hinojosa, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said in a news release.
MALDEF filed the lawsuit on behalf of the immigrants.
In March 2004, Barnett apprehended a group of illegal immigrants on his ranch and turned them over to law enforcement. The immigrants alleged that Barnett held them at gunpoint and kicked one of the women. Barnett, who has claimed he's apprehended thousands of illegal immigrants crossing through his ranch, disputed the allegations.
Barnett was never criminally charged in the case. But MALDEF's lawsuit garnered national attention and outraged many in the Legislature.
Lawmakers in 2006 passed a measure asking voters to change the state Constitution to forbid Arizona courts from awarding punitive damages to illegal immigrants. Proposition 102 passed with an approval rate of 74 percent.
But lawmakers realized later that the measure was too late to help Barnett because it wasn't retroactive.
In 2009, a federal-court jury found that Barnett didn't violate the civil rights of the illegal immigrants but ordered him to pay $77,000 to the victims for the claims of assault and causing emotional distress.
Barnett appealed, and last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower-court ruling. With interest, the amount came to about $87,000.
Less than a week later, Republican lawmakers tacked an amendment onto an unrelated bill and made Prop. 102 retroactive to Jan. 1, 2004, to help Barnett.
But U.S. District Judge Frank Zapata ruled that the retroactive law still didn't apply to Barnett because it covers plaintiffs' legal status when punitive damages are awarded, not when the incident happened.
"When plaintiffs were awarded punitive damages in February of 2009, the four plaintiffs ... were not present in Arizona in violation of federal immigration law," Zapata wrote in his ruling. "Three of the plaintiffs were lawfully present in the U.S. and the fourth plaintiff had returned to Mexico."
"We hope this will be the final chapter in Barnett's attempts to avoid paying his victims the judgment that is long overdue," David Hinojosa, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said in a news release.
MALDEF filed the lawsuit on behalf of the immigrants.
In March 2004, Barnett apprehended a group of illegal immigrants on his ranch and turned them over to law enforcement. The immigrants alleged that Barnett held them at gunpoint and kicked one of the women. Barnett, who has claimed he's apprehended thousands of illegal immigrants crossing through his ranch, disputed the allegations.
Barnett was never criminally charged in the case. But MALDEF's lawsuit garnered national attention and outraged many in the Legislature.
Lawmakers in 2006 passed a measure asking voters to change the state Constitution to forbid Arizona courts from awarding punitive damages to illegal immigrants. Proposition 102 passed with an approval rate of 74 percent.
But lawmakers realized later that the measure was too late to help Barnett because it wasn't retroactive.
In 2009, a federal-court jury found that Barnett didn't violate the civil rights of the illegal immigrants but ordered him to pay $77,000 to the victims for the claims of assault and causing emotional distress.
Barnett appealed, and last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower-court ruling. With interest, the amount came to about $87,000.
Less than a week later, Republican lawmakers tacked an amendment onto an unrelated bill and made Prop. 102 retroactive to Jan. 1, 2004, to help Barnett.
But U.S. District Judge Frank Zapata ruled that the retroactive law still didn't apply to Barnett because it covers plaintiffs' legal status when punitive damages are awarded, not when the incident happened.
"When plaintiffs were awarded punitive damages in February of 2009, the four plaintiffs ... were not present in Arizona in violation of federal immigration law," Zapata wrote in his ruling. "Three of the plaintiffs were lawfully present in the U.S. and the fourth plaintiff had returned to Mexico."
No comments:
Post a Comment