It’s a limited entry unit that can be drawn w zero points and has leftover tags every single yr is why
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Again, as a hunter, I think this is BS. But as written, the WY law on paper strongly suggests this is tresspass. Until an appellate court actually accepts some of the very good legal arguments being made to re-shape the current law to make it clearly not trespass (or until dozens of juries refuse to find guilty as acts of nullification of the literal law) these prosecutions will (and probably should) be brought if land owners ”press charges”.
I don’t know the facts of 2020, but for example, did they use a ladder both times? Did they take supporting pictures both times? Did they have evidence of GPS usage both times? Was their state of mind and intent identical in both instances? It is rare that two events are truly identical.
If even if identical in every way, prosecutors can and do repeatedly charge essentially the same violation (but different events) in front of different juries. Not guilty by a jury does nothing to change the law or bind the prosecutor.
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
The 5th amendment applies only to the exact event and to the exact charges that were made (or could have been made). If I rob the same bank in the same manner in two different years, a not guilty verdict for one of the robberies in no way eliminates the charges for the other one. Heck, in many instances, the feds can even re-try the same event but with federal charges. (I really think SCOTUS has this point wrong)
JM77
Well-known member
You and I have two completely different takes on Wyoming law. I can find nothing to suggest cc is a criminal trespass.
The hunters don't have to prove their innocence, they don't need GPS evidence or pictures. In 2020, there was no witness to their crossings. They never touched private land. There is simply a body cam conversation.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
Everything I learned about law was from Barry Zuckerkorn.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
I'm not 100% sure but I believe in 2020 the only difference is they crossed the corner without a ladder, since the fence posts with a chain wasn't there at that time.
JM77
Well-known member
If you're not 100% sure, you shouldn't say it. How do you know what was there?
Exactly why should they have to prove their innocent on something no one even witnessed them do in 2020?
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,526
Because King Eshelman told the DA to charge them. The DA told the sheriff to cite them. Unless/until the good citizens of Carbon County elect different officials, it's good to be the king.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Why shouldn't I say what I believe is true? I don't understand? We're having a discussion here, I'm interested if others heard the same thing that I thought I did. I've read a lot of articles on this case and listened to the trial.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I do not profess to be an expert on WY law, but there is a statute that claims the “air space” for the land owner. There are of course legal rationals to ignore this, but as that instruction was given, I can only assume a sitting judges views the statute as valid and applicable.
Any differences in facts/evidence between the two events are the reason a second charge might be appropriate
I never said they have to prove innocence. But if there are two bank robberies and in the first the defendant has an alibi and that alibi is a basis for jury innocence, the lack of that type of alibi in a second case could make a big difference in jury outcome.
Finally, I gather you are a lawyer. As such, you must have experience with prosecutors pushing laws repeatedly with similar facts and taking there chance with the jury pool. I am not aware of any successful prosecutor that stops pursuing a particular offense just because of one “bad beat”.
I don’t see this as a wyoming law that makes cc trespassing. I don’t know the exact language in the law the judge instructed the jury to take to deliberations but it basically said the landowner owns the airspace above the ground, but there has to be some reasonable sense applied. I would think this would refer to harassing landowners w drones low flying helicopters harassing wildlife etc. if u try and extend that law to corners of property that means no one can lawfully cross corners to access property whether that’s private landowners or public. The law wasn’t intended to block access. It was intended to keep landowners from being harassed w low flying aircraft etc in my opinion. And I think the jury saw that
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
A prosecutor pursing charges with a good faith basis in the law (even if others disagree with the law or have their own arguments of why the law should not apply) is not corruption.
Of course there are events of corruption in life, but assuming that is the case because we disagree with the written law and the judge’s application of that written law is not appropriate.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am fairly sure I read that they openly admitted they crossed the corner the year before. Also, about 80% of criminal cases do not have eyewitness evidence provided.
I see it as she’s an idiot. Everything in this case shows corruption to me. The game and fish wouldn’t issue a citation. The county sheriff wouldn’t issue the citation. This happened two yrs in a row! The sheriff only issued the citation after being instructed by the DA after he refused repeatedly and after I’m sure she was bought off by elshmen. And now she wants to retry them for the same offense they were found not guilty of. The facts are the same actually. They crossed the same corners two diffrent yrs. There is nothing different about 2020 then 2021 other than the game and fish officer witnessed them cross in 2021. Not even a witness in 2020. This is the biggest waste of tax payers dollars and mockery of justice as I’ve saw ever. What a freakin joke.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Here's one article that seems to indicate the hunters didn't use a ladder in 2020:
Corner-crossing video: ‘Do they realize how much money my boss has?’
A Carbon County sheriff’s deputy and a Wyoming Game and Fish officer spent more than 16 minutes with the Elk Mountain Ranch manager during their response to a hunting trespass
Quote from the article:
"That seven-page document, not counting attachments, is Davis’ response to the hunters’ motion to dismiss the charges. Davis asserts that 2021 was the second year in a row the hunters had crossed corners in the area.
Smith, Yeomans and Cape had crossed at public-private corners in 2020, she wrote. At that time “[t]hey reportedly spun their bodies around the T posts,” marking the private property, Davis wrote in her response.
One of the men contacted Davis after the 2020 trip, the county attorney wrote. Although authorities issued no citations in 2020, “the charges were pending,” her filing states.
In 2021, the men used a fence ladder to climb over two T posts on two adjacent and kitty-corner parcels of Elk Mountain Ranch property. The two posts were chained and wired together, according to a photograph purporting to show the corner in question."
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Historically this body of law‘s entire purpose was to prevent access. The law didn’t start when drones were invented - or helicopters either. I believe it is anachronistic law, but laws don’t change just because the times do. Judge rulings, regulatory rule changes, legislative statutory changes are what change the law. The 1% of Americans who big game hunt out west shared common sense does not change the law. And jury verdicts don’t change the law.
As a matter of literal reading, this is more likely trespass than not. With one or two judicial rulings or a single statutory change it all goes away. The fight will go on past this one jury verdict.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
The hunter in me says, “hallelujah“. The lawyer in me says it’s not that simple.
JM77
Well-known member
I do respect your opinions. Air space law is found in Title 10 of the Wyoming statutes and defines the right of aircraft to fly over private land, with exceptions. There is no criminal remedy for violating air space in Wyoming, it is a civil matter. There is no definition in Wyoming law that includes air space for criminal matters. Until this case, there is no record of someone cited for a "bodily" violation of air space.
A brilliant closing by one of the lawyers quoted the Wyoming statute on air space "...is vested in the several owners below." What more needs to be said?
And yes, an alibi can make a difference, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
