Wyoming corner crossing verdict

[wapitibob]

And a big thank you to you Buzz, JM77, and MuleCreek for the time and effort on this.

 

[fatlander]

No, it most certainly does not. This in no way sets precedent. Every case and it's details are different. But it's a step in the right direction. The law is still on the books that says airspace belongs to the property owner. Just because a jury found them not guilty doesn't erase that or make it not a law. A different court or jury could easily find someone guilty of the same offense.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

Yes but it does make prosecutors think twice before filing charges. This is a stretch of a comparison, but it’s also illegal to have sex with the lights on if you’re married in the state of Virginia. Good luck finding an attorney to file those charges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wags]

Anyone have a patent on a corner crossing ladder yet?.... asking for a friend.

 

[wyodan]

Anyone have a patent on a corner crossing ladder yet?.... asking for a friend.

Little Giant does. They come in all different heights depending on how big a post is there.

 

[7LRM]

1 for 4 hunters
0 for landowner

 

[7LRM]

you guys think this nuckle head landowner will file another lawsuit against those 4 hunters again?
I hope not

 

[Crowmangler]

I would be curious to see what public opinion is on this issue via a legitimate survey of citizens (American or WY specifically). I think that may weigh on making decisions for potential lawsuits like this one going forward. For example, if 90% of the public saw no problem with "harmless" corner crossing would prosecutors be less likely to take a case? By "harmless, I mean just stepping foot across the corner to go from public to public,

 

[tracker12]

What we really need to do is make this a public use issue not just a hunting use issue.

 

[bowhunter307]

you guys think this nuckle head landowner will file another lawsuit against those 4 hunters again?
I hope not

You do realize this was the criminal case and not the civil suit that still has yet to take place, right?

The only thing this Not Guilty verdict will do is piss him off more regarding the pending civil case.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

[Wyobohunter]

You do realize this was the criminal case and not the civil suit that still has yet to take place, right?

The only thing this Not Guilty verdict will do is piss him off more regarding the pending civil case.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

Being pissed off doesn't help win a case.

 

[bowhunter307]

Being pissed off doesn't help win a case.

I want corner crossing to be legal just as much as everyone else. But everyone around here celebrating this as a win is naive and has no understanding of the legal process. All this did was get these 4 guys cleared of criminal charges in one specific case - it sets ZERO precedence at all.

The landowner isn't going to back down and is only going to dig his heels in deeper on this. This verdict will only make him double down and keep fighting.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

[Wyobohunter]

I want corner crossing to be legal just as much as everyone else. But everyone around here celebrating this as a win is naive and has no understanding of the legal process. All this did was get these 4 guys cleared of criminal charges in one specific case - it sets ZERO precedence at all.

The landowner isn't going to back down and is only going to dig his heels in deeper on this. This verdict will only make him double down and keep fighting.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

You’re probably right. I still love to see the bad guys feel sad. What’s that German term?

 

[SWFLhntr]

schadenfreude

 

[Squincher]

SCOTUS won’t answer a question of state law, only federal law. But yes, other than that I think you’re right on the precedent question.

SCOTUS applies constitutional standards to state laws all the time. There are literally thousands of cases of them upholding or overturning state laws. Here's one:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

And there is a federal statute in play in this situation, 43USC1061.

 

[kpk]

What exactly is the law in Wyoming regarding the landowners owning the airspace? Exactly how high is that before the State/Fed takes over?

 

[Scrappy]

I would hate to be a judge or DA or county anything in carbon County right now. The rich landowner is probably giving them all he!! right now.

 

[Yoder]

If I had millions of dollars, was a jerk and basically got to use thousands of acres of public land as my own I would prosecute every person who tried to access it. So what if you lose. It will cost average people tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves in court. It's not wort $50k in attorney fees to hunt some public land. I think the law is completely insane on this. You never set foot on their property but are trespassing? Then they should be able to sue the airlines for flying over and also any satellites that orbit over their land. This whole thing is not about landowner rights, it's about getting away with stealing public land.

 

[P Carter]

SCOTUS applies constitutional standards to state laws all the time. There are literally thousands of cases of them upholding or overturning state laws. Here's one:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

And there is a federal statute in play in this situation, 43USC1061.

Yes, SCOTUS will answer the federal question of whether a state law conflicts with a federal law or the federal constitution.

But they lack jurisdiction over, and won't answer, a pure matter of state law, including (for example) whether a Wyoming criminal statute precludes corner crossing, whether the State provided sufficient evidence to prove a violation, etc. The highest state court is the court of last resort for pure state questions.

Unless I'm missing something--and I very well may be, I haven't reviewed the documents in the state case--the federal statute wasn't a part of the state criminal case. And even if it was, a State typically cannot appeal from a jury acquittal on the question of criminal liability. (They can appeal from some legal questions and from sentencing, but the jury's acquittal is the last word on that particular issue.)

 

[prm]

I want corner crossing to be legal just as much as everyone else. But everyone around here celebrating this as a win is naive and has no understanding of the legal process. All this did was get these 4 guys cleared of criminal charges in one specific case - it sets ZERO precedence at all.

The landowner isn't going to back down and is only going to dig his heels in deeper on this. This verdict will only make him double down and keep fighting.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

I’d rather he be pissed off after losing, and perhaps questioning the outcome of the next case, than confident and ready to go from a win. Losing that case may not have set precedence, but it puts a little writing on the wall and gives anyone paying attention a sense for how the winds are blowing.

 

[prm]

Anyone tell me if this is high enough?