Texas Jury Rules San Antonio Man Violated Klan Act; 5 Defendants Acquitted

A Texas jury recently determined that a man from San Antonio violated the Ku Klux Klan Act during a civil trial concerning a “Trump Train” convoy that aggressively surrounded a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris campaign bus in October 2020. This trial took place over two weeks and focused on events that unfolded on one of Texas’ busiest highways.

The jury had the important task of deciding whether the actions of the Trump Train drivers constituted a breach of federal law that prohibits coordinated political intimidation. After deliberating, the seven-member jury found Eliazar Cisneros, a chef and Navy veteran, liable, ordering him to pay $10,000 in compensatory damages to the bus’s driver, Tim Holloway, along with a total of $30,000 in punitive damages to be shared among the plaintiffs. However, the jury did not find any civil liability on the part of the five co-defendants, which included two married couples and a retired singer.

The plaintiffs included former state Sen. Wendy Davis, notable for her lengthy filibuster against a restrictive abortion bill in 2013, a member of Biden’s campaign staff, and the bus driver. They testified that the 90-minute encounter on October 30, 2020, on Interstate 35 left them grappling with severe anxiety and insomnia for months afterward.

During the incident at the heart of the trial, approximately 30 vehicles emblazoned with Donald Trump’s flags surrounded the Biden campaign bus, causing significant disruption. The drivers engaged in aggressive behaviors such as swerving, brake-checking, and shouting, which forced the bus to travel at dangerously reduced speeds—some as low as 15 mph on a highway where the speed limit was 70 mph, a police expert testified.

Evidence presented in court indicated that Cisneros orchestrated the convoy’s plan to “escort” the bus, enlisting the help of his friends, Jason Peña and Edward Niño, although these two were not named in the initial complaint.

This ruling is significant as it marks an unprecedented instance where a jury found a defendant liable under the support-or-advocacy clauses of the 1871 Klan Act, which is designed to prevent coordinated actions aimed at intimidating individuals from participating in political activities.

While the plaintiffs sought additional claims under Texas laws regarding civil assault and civil conspiracy, the jury did not find the defendants liable for these claims. Both sides viewed the verdict through different lenses. Outside the courtroom, co-defendant Joeylynn Mesaros expressed her belief that the judicial system had been unfairly used against them, feeling relieved that the jury saw their perspective and upheld what she termed “justice.”

Mesaros shared her frustrations, indicating that their family had struggled due to her accumulating nearly $300,000 in legal fees. She emphasized their desire to return to normalcy and criticized the use of the Klan Act in her case, highlighting the oversensitivity surrounding various issues in contemporary society.

Cisneros chose not to speak publicly after the trial, but his attorney, former U.S. Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco, announced plans to appeal the verdict. Throughout the proceedings, the defendants maintained that they were exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, attributing their raucous behavior to the enthusiasm typically seen among sports fans.

Defendants also highlighted their working-class backgrounds and the financial burden the trial imposed on them. The trial revealed deeper connections between the defendants’ political beliefs and their Christian convictions, with many affirming views expressed in social media posts that referred to opposition parties in derogatory terms.

Testimonies included statements from plaintiffs who conveyed that they experienced anxiety, depression, and insomnia as a result of the confrontation. Despite various accusations, certain drivers involved in the incident were not included in the lawsuit, and many defendants claimed to have maintained their distance during the confrontation.

The plaintiffs were represented by organizations like Protect Democracy and the Texas Civil Rights Project, who filed the lawsuit in June 2021. High-profile conservative attorneys represented the defense, arguing that the defendants should not have to bear the consequences of the plaintiffs’ political affiliations being scrutinized in court.

The rulings could potentially lead to the plaintiffs seeking to recover over $1 million in legal fees, a decision ultimately resting in the hands of the presiding U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman.

Source: Austin American-Statesman