As a Juror, would you vote to convict someone that killed a wolf?

[cnelk]

I read some chatter online that some people wouldnt vote to convict someone who killed a wolf.

If you were called for jury duty, would you vote to convict?

 

[Jethro]

If the evidence presented left me feeling, without a doubt, that they did it illegally, yes.

 

[gman82001]

I’d never make it through the jury picking process once they started asking me questions. Not that I think wolves are the boogeyman but they’d full well know how I felt about the politicians that forced them onto the landscape

 

[Maidenfan539]

Great question.
If the evidence showed it was done, beyond a reasonable doubt, yes.

I might not agree with the circumstances, but as a juror you are asked to put personal feelings aside and be as impartial as you can (based on the evidence presented).

 

[cnelk]

EDIT

Just for discussion purposes let’s say the person mistakenly shot a wolf thinking it was a coyote.

 

[Pdzoller]

If done illegally, yes. I’d say the same regardless of if it was a mistake or not. There is no excuse to not know your target.

 

[RyanT26]

Probably not, unless they confessed to it or recorded themselves doing it like the two idiots with the bear with cubs. Same if someone smoked a grizz in Wyoming. I guess it would be my form of civil disobedience.

 

[traildust]

Nope....I'd buy them a beer that evening too!

 

[flathead#2]

Put me in the Nope category.

 

[Turkeytider]

If the evidence presented left me feeling, without a doubt, that they did it illegally, yes.

Me too. If it was against the law (irrelevant if I agreed with the law or not ) and it was proven that they did it, sure.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

No

 

[Turkeytider]

Let`s just pick the laws with which we personally agree to uphold, correct? This thread is in danger of spiraling out of control pronto. It will slip into the political instantaneously.

 

[tntrker]

My opinion doesn't change the law, so yes if guilty...

 

[Jason Snyder]

Your job as a juror is to be impartial and not operate on feelings or bias.

 

[Crowmangler]

Since they are being released in areas where the overwhelming majority didn't want them in the first place, I'd say a conviction would be difficult.

 

[Michael54]

I would never be picked due to bias bit id find it hard to convict someone that shot a wolf regardless of what the law says

 

[sndmn11]

Colorado's most recent history is to not pursue charges when a wolf was shot by a coyote hunter.

EDIT

Just for discussion purposes let’s say the person mistakenly shot a wolf thinking it was a coyote.

If statute in question contained "knowingly", "intentionally", "purposefully", "negligently", etc. and there was evidence of that adjective element, then sure. Provided that the incident took place within a reasonable distance of where the known release occured. I don't think I could fault someone for shooting a Gunnison Sage Grouse on Mt. Evans thinking it were a different bird, but I could if they shot one near Gunnison. Likewise, if someone popped a wolf in Powers County thats very different than different than at Pumphouse.

Would it be a state or federal violation? I'd be inclined to think one wouldn't find a Grand County jury that leans more anti-wolf than pro, and its a huge burden to get 12 randoms to agree.

 

[Tod osier]

I don't think I'd be allowed to serve.

 

[Marble]

I can't say one way or another. I would lean towards a black and white outcome. Meaning if it was proven then they should be convicted.

In the circumstance given, mistaking a coyote for wolf. I can see how that can happen, so inguess the circumstances matter.

Jury nullification is a real thing.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[RyanT26]

Let`s just pick the laws with which we personally agree to uphold, correct? This thread is in danger of spiraling out of control pronto. It will slip into the political instantaneously.

Well, I agree with your sentiment in theory as someone who works in law-enforcement there’s plenty of picking and choosing going on in all levels. A prime example is our recently newly elected county attorney sent notice out to area agencies of a half dozen laws that he will no longer be prosecuting, some were surprising to say the least.
If CA/DA and law-enforcement can pick and choose I see no reason a jury shouldn’t be granted the same opportunity.