Immigration Clearinghouse

DAY 1-3

It is ironic that the DeConcini Federal Courthouse boasts what are likely the most spectacular views of Tucson. The panoramic display of the Catalinas, Saguaros cacti, and the city itself—bustling with visitors attending the recent opening of the annual Gem Show is truly a wonderful sight to see from the building’s 5th floor. The irony is when you step into the Judge Roll’s courtroom, and suddenly you are transported to a place that is vastly different from the beauty that fills the hallways of the courtroom only feet away.

The courtroom, and the trial unfolding within, gives a different perspective on life in Arizona. It provides visions of “aliens”, “illegals”, rifles, private property, drugs, smugglers, barbed wire, vigilantism, and the “wild west”. The room itself does not help the mood either—the spectator benches are hard and angular, the jury box is angular, and the judge sits above it all from his steep post with even more hard, angular, wooden decorative details on the wall behind him.

The trial that will continue to unfold for the remaining week and into next week is a civil case known as Vicente vs. Barnett. Barnett should be a familiar name for those in southern Arizona, but perhaps a particularly menacing sounding name for those in Cochise County. In 1995, business owner Roger Barnett, purchased and leased an expanse of land off of Hwy 80 near Douglas, AZ, and is the setting of where this civil lawsuit stems.

March 7th, 2004, a group of 16 men and women were accosted by Roger Barnett, his dog, “Mickey” and his gun. After discovering them, Barnett circled the group—as did his dog. Three women were separated from the larger group to take advantage of some shade when Barnett approached them with his gun drawn. He was yelling at the women to move back to the larger group, but out of fear of the gun and the barking dog in their faces, they did not move. Barnett kicked one of the young women, Ana Maria Vicente, and went to kick again but the blow was blocked when she placed her backpack in the way to defend herself. Her religious figurine however was smashed from the force. Meanwhile Barnett is still yelling at them, calling the “fucking Mexicans.” Soon after, Roger’s wife, Barbara, arrived armed and aided her husband in the illegal detention. A short while later Border Patrol arrived on scene. After hearing from several people from the group that Barnett had assaulted one of them, and knowing that Barnett had this reputation in the area, called the Cochise County Sheriff’s office.

Monday’s proceeding began with the jury selection, ending with a 10 person jury being sworn into service. The composition of the jury includes 4 males, 6 females, and possibly to women of Hispanic decent, with an average age in the late to early 40’s.

Tuesday allowed the jury to meet two of the named plaintiffs in the case—Sarah Vasquez and Adela Vicente. Both women’s smaller frames could barely be seen behind the witness stand, and both looked fairly young even today, and it is hard to imagine how they must have appeared nearly 5 years ago—just mere kids.

The two women each recounted the incident through their tears, almost as if they were reliving the fear—seeing, hearing, smelling Barnett with his gun, his yelling and the barking and snarling of his dog. They saw as Barnett kicked Ana Maria Vicente, and how she warded off the second blow with her bag.

Tuesday and almost the entire day of Wednesday’s proceedings gave the jury the opportunity to meet and get acquainted with Roger Barnett. While he proclaims to stand 5’10’’, Barnett encompasses a rather petite frame, and more likely stands barely 5’9’’. There is nothing remarkable about his appearance, nor his voice, only that he must suffer from some sort of nerve damage as he has a rather apparent twitch, and looks every year of his 66 years.

Simply stated, Barnett’s defense attorney successfully bored the jury to tears. He led Barnett from his early years where he occasionally spent with his grandparents on their ranch, to his early adult life when Barnett was branching out as young entrepreneur, to what life is like living on his ranch today. His attorney, while trying to no doubt paint Barnett as hard-working, “illegal alien”-loving guy—who often gives candy and cookies to the “illegals” on his property—focused on the incident at hand for maybe 10 minutes of his 4 hour long interview.

By the time the “what happened on March 7th” rolled off his tongue, the jury really looked as if they had to shake off some of their sleepiness. Barnett explained that he always armed himself when approaching unknown people, as he had received 4 death threats the year prior to this incident. When Barnett testified that he was not part of any formalized border militia or minutemen groups, when asked by his attorney if he agreed with this type of activity, Barnett paused—turned a dark red, and seemingly resentful of the question, answered that he did agree with it and that he brought to light what they were dealing with.

The plaintiff’s attorney then took up the questioning—pointing out Barnett’s many discrepancies from his various testimonies and deposition testimonies to his testimony of present. Then he jump-started the jury, so to speak, by asking Barnett whether he remembered yelling at the group calling the “stupid fucking Mexicans.” Suddenly, the jury was back, leaning forward in their seats.

The trial continues tomorrow at promptly 9am. We invite anyone to attend the trial—and we need support in there—not only do we have Barnett’s own posse filling the seats, Roy Warden is there to pay his respects no doubt.

DAY 4

After filing in the courtroom shortly after 9 a.m. this morning, the plaintiff’s lawyers called to the stand Robert Vega, an EMT with the city of Douglas, who took the courtroom back in time to a little over two years ago off Hwy 80. Vega, dressed in his crisp medical uniform, seemed slightly uneasy on the witness stand. This soon wore off as he began describing what he encountered on December 30th, 2006. Vega told the jury how he had responded to call from the Douglas Border Patrol to transport a patient who had suffered an injury to his leg. While attending to his patient, Vega described how he saw out the window a man in plainclothes, along with a uniformed Border Patrol agent on the side of the road. The man in plainclothes began waving the ambulance down. Vega described how they were concerned another person was in need of immediate medical attention, and they stopped the vehicle. Once stopped, Vega recalled how he exited the ambulance from the back and closed the doors behind him. Immediately following, a man walked right up to Vega, confronting him in his face demanding that he see inside the vehicle to determine whether or not the person within was who he had been tracking. Vega identified this man to be Roger Barnett.

After firmly telling him that he would not be allowed in the back of the vehicle as it was against the law, Barnett became even more aggressive—trying to side-step around Vega to make his way in. Vega stood his ground. Barnett flushed a dark red—which was not particularly hard to imagine as his coloring has changed throughout the trial from pink to dark crimson. Barnett then took a slight step back, and then positioned his hand hovering over his gun on his hip. Vega determined it was time for the ambulance to be on its way, reentered the vehicle, and headed for the hospital, leaving Barnett behind on Hwy 80.

The questioning was then transferred over to the entourage of defense lawyers—and there are a lot of them at the table. Defense Attorney Coughlin wasted no time in trying to disparage the patient with the injured leg. Insinuating that he was a drug dealer, then blatantly asking Robert Vega—a civil servant who saves lives on daily basis—whether or not it was the policy of the Douglas Fire Department to protect drug smugglers. With this point out of the way, the defense quickly wrapped up their questioning and Vega was dismissed from the stand.

The next 4 witnesses called by the plaintiff’s were from various law enforcement agencies in the Douglas area. There was a brief testimony provided by a Sgt. Wilkinson of the Douglas Police Department concerning an incident on February 19th, 2000. At this time Wilkinson was employed on the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department. Not much was gleaned from his testimony, as it was peppered with objections and sidebars—leaving Sgt. Wilkinson with just enough admissible words that he could count on his hand. What could be more or less gathered was that this incident once again involved Roger Barnett, who had pulled over a car that he suspected contained undocumented persons and detained them unlawfully until the sheriff arrived.

Next on the stand was Border Patrol Agent Warwick, who gingerly made his way up to the stand as he supported his roughly 6’ 3’’ tall frame on crutches due to a broken leg. Agent Warwick concisely relayed his tale how on June 5th 2004, also near Hwy 80, of when he responded to a civilian call. Upon his arrival, Warwick noted that 7 individuals were sitting on the ground, meanwhile 6 people dressed in plainclothes each sporting their weapon of choice were also on the scene. He identified one as being Roger Barnett. Quickly following Agent Warwick, was Sgt. Rachilla also currently employed by the Douglas Police Department, though at the time of this incident was also a member of the Cochise Sheriff’s department. Rachilla reconfirmed that on this day he was responding to a call of aggravated assault with a weapon.

The final law enforcement witness for the day was Agent Wesley, also of the Douglas Border Patrol. Wesley was the agent that first responded to the scene on March 7th, 2004. When he arrived he noted that there was a group of migrants on the ground in a wash, with Barnett and his wife standing slightly above them. Wesley said he immediately began forming the group in a line, and a short time later was approached by young woman requesting to speak to him. She began to relay to him that she had been kicked by the man with the gun and that when he kicked her again, he broke her statue of baby Jesus that she was carrying.

Upon seeing her speaking to Wesley, Barnett rushed over and demanded to know what she had said. Barnett looked right at her and dared her to speak again; the young woman bowed her head and spoke no more. This was not the first time Wesley had encountered Barnett. Roughly a year before this incident, Wesley responded to a call that a civilian had detained 2 migrants. While driving over to this call, he heard that there was another group in the area being tracked. When Wesley arrived, Barnett immediately took off in the direction of where the last group was sited. Wesley affirmed that Border Patrol radio frequency can and does get scanned by other paramilitary groups roving the border.

The rest of day 4 turned to the testimony of Ana Maria Vicente, a woman of barely 5 feet tall, fair skinned, with a pretty face. Her attorney led her through an abbreviated version of the woman’s short life—losing her father, and then her mother early in life. She recounted how her older brother and sister made the decision to move the U.S. in hopes of the prophetic better life. After crossing over the line in the desert near Agua Prieta, is where their frightful tale begins. Early on in their trek, together with a larger group numbering nearly twenty people, the group was accosted by a couple of armed, masked bandits. Ana Maria offered what she had from her pockets in her pants. Hours later, after taking a much needed rest, her and two other women had separated themselves from the rest of the group for some shade. A little while later, a dog came running up to them, barking, circling around the women. The dog darted off, only to return with his armed owner, Roger Barnett.

As Ana Maria began to describe her fear—it felt the courtroom had dissolved, and I could easily picture the wash that she was lying in as she observed her frightening surroundings. It was not hard to picture the rocky and uncomfortable ground beneath, the unfamiliar terrain, surrounded by a few loved-ones, no money, scrubby trees, and then—the sound of a barking dog, a man with a gun pointing in your face, the foreign language, and the absence of a friendly face. Then a swift kick, the gun still in hand, and then another, and your prized baby Jesus being shattered in an instance. It was appalling to look over at Barnett’s wife, smirking at her fear—perhaps suggesting that this was not frightening at all. When asked how this incident has affected her emotional state, Ana paused, looked directly at the jury and said, “Roger Barnett says he doesn’t recognize us, and he is lucky. I remember him every day of my life”.

Day 5 – Morning

Max Blumenthal, journalist who lives in New York, New York (“city so nice, they named it twice” as he told the defense attorney), was called to the stand by the plaintiffs this morning.
Blumenthal was a person of interest because he wrote an article entitled, “Vigilante Injustice” for which he interviewed Roger Barnett.

According to Blumenthal, Barnett said some very racist and harsh words tinged with violence.

It was a smooth examination on the part of the Plaintiff’s side and they were able to show Barnett’s racial hostility toward migrants whom he considers all as , “dumb Messicans”.

When cross examination came around, it became very tense and evident that Blumenthal was not going to play nice. He was asked by the defense lawyer if he had seen the area where Barnett’s ranch lies. Blumenthal responded that,” Roger Barnett had never invited him to his ranch.” The defense continued to ask the same question and said that he simply wanted a “yes or no”. It got to the point where the judge had to ask Blumenthal to answer as “yes or no”. THen it was established that although he had never been invited to the Barnetts’ ranch, he had visited SouthEast Arizona extensively.

He was then asked the following in an accusing manner:
While you spent some time in SE Arizona, did you see marijuana? Did you see the hoardes of illegal aliens crossing Roger’s land? Did you see tons of trash piled up on private property?

He was read some lines from his article and after each quote, was asked if he had distinguished between unlawful, undocumented, illegal aliens and lawful immigrants (w/government permission). At some point he was read a quote from someone else and still asked if he had distinguished between the two.

They finished with the cross examination and continued on with Mr. Trujillo, another person called on by the Plaintiff’s side.

****Before Mr. Trujillo is brought up, however, the Judge made a statement to the jury to the effect that this witness along with the previous one were to be considered as a claim that Barnett was motivated by racial animosity. (and here, i need help because i did not understand it clearly or you can jsut take this paragraph out).****

Mr. Trujillo is introduced and his character is established. He has been in the Communications Service industry for over 25 years. He is an expert on reading maps due to the fact that part of his job consists of getting signals to various places regardless of the geographical terrain. He says he basically has to bounce signals from mountain to mountain or valley or whatever is obstructing a signal, to where it needs to get. He was asked many questions about his profession and he was very knowledgeable in his responses.

Then they went on to ask about what transpired on January 22, 2005. See, one of his hobbies is hunting. He went out hunting with his friend and they had a map and a GPS. Before he went out, they checked out the areas they would be at to make sure that it was public property. They assured themselves of that, presented their permit with the Arizona Game and Fish Department. They went hunting, here he described where they went, what he did when suddenly, two trucks come up to him, one passes him, the other one comes up against his rib and pushes him towards a mesquite tree. He is then approached by Roger Barnett who is carrying a gun on his holster by his breast. He went up to Mr. Trujillo and started cursing at him, “like a rabid dog.”

He said to him, “Who the f#& are you? Who the f#& gave you permission to be on my land? What the f#& do you think you’re doing you dumb, f#&en messican?”

He says he tried to explain to him and show him on the map that he was on state land and Barnett grabbed the map ad crumpled it up.
When Michael left, he says that he felt as if he wasn’t a man, he felt stepped on, yelled at, calle all kinds of obscenities including, “ignorant f#&en messican”. When he arrived at his vehicle, the door handle had been broken.

During cross examination, Mr. Trujillo was asked whether or not he had a weapon on him; a weapon that could hurt a human? He said he did. Because he was carrying his simple bow and arrows for hunting.

The defense lawyer also focused quite a bit on how Mr. Trujillo’s door handle on his vehicle had been broken before that incident, hadn’t it?
Mr. Trujillo says that it had been cracked but that day, it was broken by someone.

He says that he kept his GPS tracks for two years after that, to show the coordinates and the exact trail he had traveled that day. According to him, there is absolutely no way that it can be altered or duplicated since it is exact.

The next witness on the stand was a plaintiff, Rigoberto Perez. Rigoberto’s character was established. He was one of 9 kids who lived with their parents. His father was the one that worked to bring money in. His father did agricultural work and it wasn’t always guaranteed since sometimes there was no rain and they did not have an irrigation system.

He went to school up to when he was 16 years old. He dropped out because he had to help his family. But even when he did go to school, he was in one classroom with many grades and it wasn’t always guaranteed that the teacher would be there, sometimes the teacher was absent for days and sometimes months.

At 19, he decided to come to the United States out of the desperation that his family was in. He came with an uncle and two cousins. As they were walking, they were approached by a group of 3-4 people and were robbed of all their money at gunpoint.

They kept walking and met up with another group of people. They crossed the border fence and here, Mr. Perez is asked if they ever crossed any other fence, he answers ,”no”. He is a humble man of few words. He goes on to relay the incident of that day. THey stopped at a wash to rest. Suddenly, they hear a motor stop running and then they hear a dog barking and coming toward them. The dog comes up to them, starts barking and circling them twice then goes off and when he returns, he comes back with a man, Roger Barnett. Barnett starts yelling at them, mainly in English and some things in Spanish. Mr. Perez understands some of the things that Barnett is yelling and he also understands the angry tone. He says that they were yelled, “motherf#&er, mexican, dumb motherf#&er”. They were told to sit with their heads bowed, the whole time Barnett was pointing the gun at them. At some point, he went to where another group was sitting and he saw Barnett forcibly kick someone, a woman because she yelled in pain, and later he learned that it was Ana Maria.

Mr. Perez is asked if anyone said that they were going to leave at any point during the incident. Mr. Perez said that yes, someone had said they were going to leave and Barnett had said that they could go if they wanted to but that the dog was ready to bite their ass.
According to Mr. Perez, Barnett continued to yell at them and the dog continued to bark the whole time. He says that during the whole ordeal, he was made to feel worthless, as if he was nothing.

After that, Border Patrol arrived and Mr. Perez was relieved because he felt that they would be treated better by them than by Barnett.
He says that since the incident, he has had nightmares, lack of appetite and nervousness. To this day, he still experiences those feelings.

Day 5 – Afternoon

Day 5 presented to the jurors the range of hostile encounters at the hands
of the Barnetts. Most notable was the afternoon testimony of Ronald
Morales. Mr. Morales shared his experience of being verbally assaulted by
Roger Barnett in October 2004 during a hunting trip on state land abutting
Barnett’s property with his father, two daughters (ages 8 and 11 at the
time), and the best friend of his eldest daughter.

Morales was born and raised in Douglas, Arizona. Morales currently lives
in Sierra Vista where he works for the Department of Defense as an
Information Advisor with the highest level of security clearance the
government affords. A self-described “outdoorsman” he explained that he
has lived in Douglas hunting and fishing with his family since his early
childhood.

On the day in questions, Morales was taking his eldest daughter and her
best friend deer hunting for their first time. They had prepared by having
the girls take the necessary training classes, receive hunting licenses,
practice at the firing range, and contacting the rancher through whose
property they would cross to access the state land where they would be
hunting.

The testimony took many twists and turns. Morales explained how he had
taken his eldest daughter to close in on a deer they had spotted, leaving
Morales’ father and the two other girls back at the truck parked on the
access road. As his daughter prepared for the shot, Morales explained he
heard a frightening scream exude from the mouth of his youngest child.
They hurried back to the road to find Roger Barnett screaming expletives
and accusing the rest of their party of trespassing on private land.
Morales went on to explain that he placed his rifle in the truck, grabbed
his permit and Bureau of Land Management map and attempted to approach
Barnett to explain that his presence was legitimate.

The kids were crying, and ultimately soiled themselves, in the bed of the
truck as Barnett shouted and cussed at them. We learned later that Barnett
approached them by calling them, “F#$%ing dirty Mexicans.” Morales
explained that he wanted to try and diffuse the situation and tried to
explain that they were on public land and that they had gone through the
necessary steps to permit their presence. Barnett continued to scream and
cuss. He asked Barnett, “Sir, what’s your name?” When Barnett responded,
“It’s Roger f&^$ing Barnett” he then pulled out a semi-automatic rifle and
began to chamber the bullet. Throughout the incident, Barbara Barnett
(Roger’s wife) sat quietly in the truck observing.

At this point, Morales explained that he thought they were going to die.
Barnett pointed the gun at his chest and continued to scream, cuss, and
froth at the mouth. Morales continued to encourage the frozen and shocked
girls to get into the truck, but it was as if they could not move. Their
Grandpa continued to motion to the girls to get into the cab of the truck
saying, “Look what he’s doing–get in the truck.” At that moment, Barnett
responds, “Look what I’m f%$&ing doing” and moves the gun around to point
at the girls and finally on the chest of their Grandpa.

The girls did finally get into the truck and as they left the scene Barnett
had the gun pointed at the back of the truck. Soon after leaving Morales
called 911. After crossing Donald Barnett on a quad, they eventually
reached Border Patrol, the Cochise County Sheriff’s department and Arizona
Game and Fish. Morales recounted the story to them at that time and was
eventually convinced by a Sheriff’s Deputy to return to the site to
approach Barnett.

Here is where it gets really interesting. As they returned to cross a gate
that Morales had entered earlier in the day, they found both Roger and
Donald Barnett at the gate armed. The Deputy called to them to put their
arms down. Roger Barnett refused stating, “You are just a deputy–you
can’t do anything.” It wasn’t until the Border Patrol and other agencies
arrived that they conceded to disarm.

Some additional notes worth mentioning here is that both Roger and Donald
Barnett were donning green shirts and green hats with yellow insignias. We
later learned that Donald Barnett’s hat actually read, “U.S. Border
Patrol.”

The cross examination of Morales was bizarre at best. The defense came out
highly combative. I daresay, they demonstrated the same level of anger
management issues their client appears to be challenged with. It seemed
that the strategy of the defense was to be as combative as possible so as
to stir the witness. This was not very effective. They then moved on to
confusing everyone in the court as much as possible hoping that it would
reflect back on the witness to suggest that their testimony was
illegitimate. It remains to be seen how successful they may have been, but
Morales held his ground and it certainly seemed like smoke and mirrors to
many observers in the court.

And the case continues.

DAY 6-7

Wednesday, 11 February 2009
With the weekend come and gone—Monday’s proceedings started off with a refreshed jury and equally refreshed teams of lawyers.

The majority of Monday’s proceedings were devoted to the plaintiff’s witness, Dr. Mackavanski, who interviewed and psychiatrically assessed each of the people who were confronted by Roger Barnett on March 7, 2004. One by one, the plaintiff’s team led Mackavanski through each of plaintiffs—Sandra Velasquez, Ana Maria Vicente, Adela Vicente, Rigoberto Perez, and so on.

After roughly two hours of testimony, and many more to come, Mackavanski and the plaintiff’s lawyers seemed as if they were engaged in some sort of ritualistic chant, their words beginning to form a much repeated refrain in a chorus. After each name introduced, Dr. Mackavanski then concluded that each plaintiff now suffered from Postpartum Stress Disorder, a form of depression, or both. He described that his patients now suffered from an array of symptoms that led him to this conclusion, nervousness, anxiety, phobias of dogs and guns, intrusive reflections of the events that occurred, nightmares, fear of the future, despair, hopelessness, and depression. Back and forth, a name was introduced, the conclusion being a combination of these symptoms.

I watched as few people who were in the audience undoubtedly in support of the Barnett’s, shake their heads—suggesting, I would imagine, that these people didn’t really experience a traumatic event all. Perhaps they can’t put themselves on the other side and in the plaintiff’s shoes, or perhaps they are just desensitized by their own daily use of guns, hunting, and even rounding up “illegals”, that they just can’t recognize that some people have never seen a gun before—much more, one that is directed at them point blank. Or maybe they can’t imagine a situation where they have left their whole lives behind, in search of a new one—the future uncertain. It is almost for certain they have never experienced a stressful situation where everyone around them spoke a different language.

The start of Day 7 brought Sandra Velasquez to the witness stand. There her lawyer once again led her through the events of March 7th, 2004. It then was turned over to the defense for cross-examination, and Mr. Kauffman once again sidled up to the podium. I remember reflecting on the sharp angles and hard surfaces that seemed so incongruent to the beautiful views that can be seen just out the doors of this courtroom. In looking at Kauffman, with his angular features, sharp nose, and the way he almost blends in to the sharp angles of the courtroom, only adds to his cold aura that he gives off. It is actually more likely to experience this chilling effect when he starts his cross-examination—the man takes no concern to restrain his animosity towards the people his questioning.

Once up, he spared no time in attacking Sandra Velasquez in what she had divulged to Dr. Mackavanski in her psychiatric assessment—part of which was to address whether the patient had experience any stressful situations in the past. Ms. Velasquez reported that her husband and she had marital problems early into their marriage. This became open-season for Kauffman to immediately seize upon. He asked her whether it caused her anxiety when her husband used to compare her to his other girlfriends—she responded no, it only made her sad. He asked her if it caused her anxiety when her husband told her he wanted a divorce because he was tired of her, and she said no—it only made her sad. All the while through this questioning, Kauffman manages to plaster a saccharine smile on his face—and remained there even when he asked her if it caused her anxiety when her husband hit her. She finally responded by saying that her problems with her husband was a situation she felt she could control—where as with Barnett, every single second was uncertain. He responded by asking whether or not she was in control when her husband hit her. After a few more disgusting and rather irksome questions, Kauffman finished his questioning. The plaintiff’s team rested their case, and the noon recess was called.

After the noon recess—the jury was contained in the jury room while both sides argued over the defense’s motion for a directive verdict. During the next few minutes, Ronald Barnett and Barbara Barnett were relinquished from their charges, after the judge determined that there just was not any evidence showing their involvement. After another lengthy argument from both side, the judge also whittled down the charges against Barnett—leaving him to face the charges of violation of civil rights, assault, battery, unlawful restraint, and intention of inflicting emotional distress.

After the jury filed back into the room, the defense called a long-time family friend of the Barnett’s to show the jury his home video he had shot on Barnett’s property. Larry Vance’s video did indeed show trash on Barnett’s property. One shot in particular was of a dried wash—strewn with trash. One good thing about the jury being composed of one’s peers—is that perhaps they too are familiar with washes around their homes. They should know that after the summer monsoons, with rushing water filling these dried beds now long gone, all that typically remains is debris. It is one of those amazing attributes that flowing water has—the ability to sweep up refuse from miles and miles away, transporting it to a new resting place, until the next round of heavy rains. I would find it difficult as a juror to place all the blame solely on migrants—water bottles should be ubiquitous in the desert, everyone—no matter citizenship status—needs water to survive.

The next witness called was Deputy Hernandez of the Cochise County Sheriff’s office. His essential role was to dispute the arguments made by the plaintiff’s that Barnett is racially motivated, and targets Hispanics on purpose. His testimony referred to another incident with the Barnett’s and a hunter on their land. A confrontation occurred, and Mr. Trujillo who was the hunter in this incident decided to file a police report. He spoke to Hernandez, who was the one who wrote the official report of what had happened and what Barnett had said to him during this encounter. Kauffman, deciding that some of his client’s words were too harsh for delicate ears, had Hernandez spell out the “adverbs” and phrases his client said. Hernandez’s report essentially did not refer to Barnett saying anything like “fucking Mexicans” or “dumb Mexicans.” On cross-examination however, this was impeached—as the plaintiff’s team swiftly brought up Hernandez deposition, where he had testified that Barnett did indeed place “fucking” before the word, “Mexicans”.

With thirty minutes left in the day, Donald Barnett was called to the stand, and is where the defense will pick up on Wednesday morning.

Our thanks to our friends at Border Action Network for this daily update.