For the hunters, any win is a win, but for the broader issue, wouldn't we prefer the judge to give the aerial trespass instructions, get a "guilty" and press on appeal? A jury finding of reasonable doubt does nothing to advance the broader conversation or am I missing something?
Civil case
I would still prefer a trial loss and appeal win to advance our cause. Public land users need this case to "lose on the law" at the district level, not "win on the facts" (reasonable doubt).
That's my point. We are "benefited" by an "error" in the application of the law by the trial judge (such as providing the aerial trespass instruction) as we can then appeal that and have a higher court "fix" it - that is how the common law is changed/modernized, and how bad legislation can be trimmed, bent or reversed by a court. A jury's "particular facts" win changes nothing.
I agree a higher court will carry more weight than a jury decision, but I think you missed my main point. It's a criminal case, not one that addresses the right to block access; therefore, it matters little at what level this case is decided because the circumstances of the next case will be different (particular facts). I've heard this over and over the last five years, the last time was on Randy's podcast with the two attorneys.
I'm going to actually disagree here.
So, if the criminal trial doesn't matter then why did we rally around the BHA fundraiser - just an act of hunter charity? That was rhetorical. The criminal trial does matter and can fundamentally change the law - most of the early civil rights cases were advanced in this manner. Criminal trials can absolutely change legal outcomes beyond their specific fact scenario - there are literally thousands of examples.
If a jury decides a drunk/sleeping person in a car is not guilty of DUI 'cuz they weren't actually driving, that does not reduce enforcement in this manner as the next jury may decide the opposite. And the risk is always with the defendant that the next jury decides the opposite. Local jury decisions have almost zero impact on law enforcement activities even in that county, let alone another county across the state. You would need a bunch of jury wins in a row to change the calculus, and even then a cranky prosecutor could charge.
I have not listened so I can't comment if the judge is somehow showing personal bias (which of course would be bad), but on the matter of corner crossing, the literal state law is on the landowner's side and the judge is doing their job by acting accordingly. It is the appellate ruling that moves the position of the law in our favor - I want non-activist judges in the local courts to apply the law as written. I leave it to appeal courts and legislatures to shape/change the law.
Again, I will disagree because I think your example does not match this particular scenario in this case.
The "I dare you to arrest me" approach to changing bad laws is a terrible way to run a government.
Fair question. In my view, hard to see a not guilty verdict being seen by large western landowners and locals in these very rural western spaces as a reason to embrace the cause of non-res hunters.
I don't argue anything about the points you are making but you were arguing on the fact that a not guilty verdict does nothing. I was just trying to prove to you that it does. Its likely short term and likely a very local impact (that region of WY and possibly the entire state) but it certainly is going to increase the amount of people willing to corner cross knowing that the likelihood of getting a criminal trespass ticket will go down.
This isn't just non-res hunters. Resident hunters have just as big of a stake in this.
