Southern Arizona Rancher Cleared of Murder Charges, Retrial Blocked by Judge

A Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge has dismissed the criminal case against George Alan Kelly, a Kino Springs resident accused of second-degree murder.

The decision, issued Tuesday, marks an end to the Kelly case with a particularly strong note of finality: Judge Thomas Fink ruled to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be retried.

Kelly, 75, was arrested on Jan. 30, 2023, after he led authorities to a deceased person on his own Kino Springs property. The man was later identified as Gabriel Cuen Buitimea, a 48-year-old Mexican citizen.

Fink noted in his ruling that the previous case against Kelly had ended in a hung jury – with seven of eight jurors voting not guilty. He argued that another trial would likely yield the same result.

“At best, another hung jury would result. More likely, another jury would acquit,” Fink wrote in Tuesday’s decision.

County prosecutors alleged that Kelly had opened fire on a group of undocumented migrants crossing his ranch, located roughly a mile-and-a-half north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The defense countered, arguing that Kelly fired defensive warning shots into the air after spotting armed men on his property and that his gunshots did not kill Cuen Buitimea.

Kelly’s trial began in March and lasted a month, involving testimonies from approximately 30 witnesses, including law enforcement agents, forensic experts, a neighbor, Kelly’s wife, and a migrant who claimed to have witnessed Cuen Buitimea’s death. Jurors also reviewed multiple 911 calls made by Kelly, who hesitated for several minutes before informing the dispatcher about the dead body.

After more than two days of deliberation, the jury informed Fink that it could not reach a verdict, leading him to declare a mistrial on April 22.

Both sides, the prosecution and defense, had requested the trial’s dismissal. The prosecution sought a dismissal without prejudice, allowing for a possible retrial, arguing that future incriminating public statements, new witnesses, or different jurors could alter the verdict.

Judge Fink bluntly criticized these points. “The defendant consistently has asserted his innocence … The possibility of the defendant making an incriminatory statement in the future is speculative and highly unlikely,” Fink wrote.

Fink also dismissed the potential for new witnesses, stating they would contradict the original testimony of Daniel Ramirez, the sole witness who claimed to have seen the fatal shooting.

On the issue of juror political bias, Fink argued there was no proof of such motivation, citing the jury’s demographic diversity, including various regions of Santa Cruz County and different ethnicities and ages.

In his final ruling, Judge Fink concluded: “In the interests of justice, the case is ordered dismissed with prejudice.”