Latest Corner Crossing Charges being dropped

[Farmingdale's Finest]

Prosecutor: Dismiss new corner-crossing charges - WyoFile

After a jury found four hunters not guilty, a prosecutor says the “essential facts” in a second round of trespassing charges have already been considered.

wyofile.com

 

[Crowmangler]

Excellent! I guess Sitka will be coming out with a subalpine step ladder soon

 

[roadrunner]

Well, the conundrum is that if one jury already found them not guilty and a second jury did (civil case), what does that say about the legal system and it's corruption?

 

[wapitibob]

Well, the conundrum is that if one jury already found them not guilty and a second jury did (civil case), what does that say about the legal system and it's corruption?

absolutely nothing

 

[bowhunter307]

Well, the conundrum is that if one jury already found them not guilty and a second jury did (civil case), what does that say about the legal system and it's corruption?

The civil case hasn't happened yet.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

[roadrunner]

absolutely nothing

Sure about that bob?...

 

[realunlucky]

Sure about that bob?...

Yes the civil case hasn't happened yet

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[WRM]

Yes the civil case hasn't happened yet

Even when (if) it does, it means nothing as to "corruption". Wildly different standards of proof. Quite normal to be responsible in a civil action when not found guilty in criminal proceeding.

In many states, however, a guilty plea/verdict will prevent re-litigation by the defendant in a civil action of the issues determined by the criminal case.

 

[307]

Well, the conundrum is that if one jury already found them not guilty and a second jury did (civil case), what does that say about the legal system and it's corruption?

Do you realize that a civil case and a criminal case are entirely different, with different rules and legal standards?

 

[roadrunner]

Do you realize that a civil case and a criminal case are entirely different, with different rules and legal standards?

Yep. Just like with a defensive shooting. You can be innocent criminally, but be sued for wrongful death. Difference is, damages were actually done via a dead body.

No damages in this case were done as they didn't tresspass. To damage property, you have to tresspass or physically alter something as in breaking a window with a rock. First jury said they didn't tresspass, so what happens if a second jury says they did?

That would be the only way to say they "damaged" air...

 

[bowhunter307]

Yep. Just like with a defensive shooting. You can be innocent criminally, but be sued for wrongful death. Difference is, damages were actually done via a dead body.

No damages in this case were done as they didn't tresspass. To damage property, you have to tresspass or physically alter something as in breaking a window with a rock. First jury said they didn't tresspass, so what happens if a second jury says they did?

That would be the only way to say they "damaged" air...

Physical damage need not occur to incur "damages" for legal purposes.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

[roadrunner]

Physical damage need not occur to incur "damages" for legal purposes.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

Yes, yes, yes. Punitive damages among them. If a court feels punitive damages occurred in this case, then there is something wrong with the court.

Up to this point, damage to airspace had been the primary reason for the civil suit. If a court/judge carries through and awards the landowner over a frivolous action as this, the judge is merely trying to help make an example out of these hunters.

 

[Marble]

Sure about that bob?...

Until there is a judicial decision stating something about the actual law then the not guilty verdict doesn't change anything.

In order for the law to change, the legislators or courts, need to address the issue and make a decision.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[roadrunner]

Until there is a judicial decision stating something about the actual law then the not guilty verdict doesn't change anything.

In order for the law to change, the legislators or courts, need to address the issue and make a decision.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Courts can't change a law, they merely interpret the law and apply it. Not guilty means a jury of their peers didn't think the hunters broke a law relative to criminal tresspass, in spite of a judge leading and baiting the jury to decide in favor of the state.
For damages to have occured to airspace, it had to be infringed on in some way and in some kind of manner.

Maybe in WY the courts make law and legislate from the bench.

The only thing the courts are supposed to do is to rule a law as either Constitutional and apply it or Unconstitutional and send the legislators back to the drawing board.

 

[Marble]

Courts can't change a law, they merely interpret the law and apply it. Not guilty means a jury of their peers didn't think the hunters broke a law relative to criminal tresspass, in spite of a judge leading and baiting the jury to decide in favor of the state.
For damages to have occured to airspace, it had to be infringed on in some way and in some kind of manner.

Maybe in WY the courts make law and legislate from the bench.

The only thing the courts are supposed to do is to rule a law as either Constitutional and apply it or Unconstitutional and send the legislators back to the drawing board.

Appellate courts can and have decided if a law is constitutional or not, or ruled that opinions (decisions) on the law is correct or not, but also if it is vague or conflicts with other laws that grant or remove specific rights, practices or behaviors etc.

The recent roe v wade thing as far as being constitutional or not, is an example of that. So the judge in this particular case could rule the law was or wasn't constitutional, but it's rare at the superior court level. It's usually done at a circuit court where it is appealed to.

I doubt the judge in this case was going to even consider a ruling on the actual law. Which is what all of really want clarification on. The civil case has the potential, but it's years away from getting there.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

Talked to the Missouri4 tonight on a zoom call regarding this case and the upcoming civil trial...the Judge signed the dismissal for the 2020 criminal charges.

Was a good discussion.