Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

Now we wait. Anybody got a pool going for the verdicts? And the time they deliver it!?
With the judge’s instructions, I say guilty verdict is returned. Hunters aren’t contesting whether they entered air space over the private property, and judge is instructing jurors that that is illegal. Seems pretty cut and dry.
 
I feel like the defense attorneys rambled too much. I would have liked to hear more focus on, "None of the sheriffs or game wardens issued citations because there was reasonable doubt that there had been any criminal actions."
 
My bet is they are eventually found not guilty because of instruction 10, which, I think, requires that they knowingly violated the law. It seems like there was a lot of ambiguity if this particular type of trespass was illegal. The defense spent a lot of time on it.
 
With the judge’s instructions, I say guilty verdict is returned. Hunters aren’t contesting whether they entered air space over the private property, and judge is instructing jurors that that is illegal. Seems pretty cut and dry.
But if you have a paramotor attached to your back and you fly over private 1” above the ground, that is 100% legal. Makes sense.
 
Last edited:
This isn't just non-res hunters. Resident hunters have just as big of a stake in this.

As does anyone who wants to corner cross to recreate on public lands in this situation. In fact, getting mountain bikers, hikers, rock climbers, snowmobilers, etc on board will only help.
I understand and agree - but if the premise is that an "on the facts" judgment helps us, then it is easy for those who disagree with us to point out the facts were an obnoxious NR owner and NR hunters - but in our county it would be different. The extreme behavior of the owner and his agents actually makes a jury win less valuable, as easy to dismiss as being driven by that.
 
My bet is they are eventually found not guilty because of instruction 10, which, I think, requires that they knowingly violated the law. It seems like there was a lot of ambiguity if this particular type of trespass was illegal. The defense spent a lot of time on it.
You may be right, but then if that is the reason then anybody watching this thread is now on notice and the ease of the next prosecution goes up.
 
Sweet - a little American jury nullification.
all it takes is for one of those jury members to be a public land hunter. I wonder how in depth the jury selection was. I get that they would have tried to get unbiased members by not having a big landowner or a huge public land hunter be on the jury but in Wyoming isn't that kind of hard to do?
 
Back
Top