Arizona rancher who fatally shot a migrant in his ranch has charges dismissed

George Alan Kelly, the Arizona rancher who fatally shot a Mexican man in his ranch in January last year, won't face a retrial on murder charges, a judge determined. The decision follows a deadlocked jury in late April and the decision by the prosecutor's office not to pursue a retrial.

Concretely, Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink said the State "has decided not to retry this case following mistrial because another jury would not convict the defendant based upon the same evidence." "At best, another hung jury would result. More likely, another jury would acquit," Fink added.

Cuen-Buitimea was part of a group of undocumented migrants who were crossing the high desert in Kino Springs, when they were spotted by Border Patrol and fled, The New York Times reported. Cuen-Buitimea and another man, Daniel Ramirez, ran onto Kelly's ranch, which is when the man fired an AK-47-style rifle at them, authorities said.

Fink declared a mistrial on April 22 after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous decision on a verdict after more than two days of deliberation in the case against Kelly, who fatally shot Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea on his 170-acre ranch in Kino Springs, Ariz. Jurors voted 7-1 in favor of acquitting Kelly of second-degree murder or manslaughter, negligent homicide or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

The Santa Cruz County Attorney's Office decided not to pursue a retrial "because of the unique circumstances and challenges surrounding the case," said Deputy County Attorney Kimberly Hunley back then.

Now, Judge Fink added to the arguments a lack of physical evidence and witnesses. He recalled that the bullet that allegedly killed Cuen-Buitimea was never found and that the only witness named who came forward, Daniel Ramirez, "would even be around for another trial." "There is no assurance that his whereabouts would be known in the future," Fink said, considering that Ramirez testified about failing to cross the border 10 times.

"The court finds that the State is not able to articulate a reasonable basis for holding this case 'open' with a dismissal without prejudice. The interests of justice are not served by the dismissal without prejudice for a case that cannot and will not be re-tried," Fink wrote. "The interests of justice are not advanced where the only thing to be accomplished by a dismissal without prejudice ... is the harassment of the Defendant."