Free: Contests & Raffles.
COEUR d'ALENE - The man who shot a wolf on Rathdrum Mountain turned down a plea deal offered by Kootenai County prosecutors that would have had him pay a $200 fine in exchange for a guilty plea.He has opted instead for a jury trial."I said, 'Nope,'" Forrest Mize said shortly after his arraignment Tuesday morning. Prosecutor Barry McHugh confirmed the offer was made.Mize is representing himself on the misdemeanor charge of possessing a wolf without a tag. He doesn't plan to hire an attorney at this stage."It's going to be really hard to find a jury in North Idaho that finds me guilty for shooting a wolf to save my stinking dogs," he said.Mize, 53, shot the wolf Dec. 30 while he was out hiking in some fresh snow with his three dogs, all Labs, named Maggie, Jenny and Katie.He was carrying a gun - a Kimber .22-caliber Hornet - with him for protection when he spotted the wolf, which he said looked like it was about to pounce on his pets. The dogs were 100 yards in front of him.When he shot the wolf in the side through its heart, his three dogs were all close enough to be visible within the picture of his gun's scope, he said.He bought a wolf hunting tag later that day for $11.50 at a Rathdrum pharmacy. He is not a trophy hunter, he said, but wanted to keep the pelt.
"It's going to be really hard to find a jury in North Idaho that finds me guilty for shooting a wolf to save my stinking dogs," he said.
I found his response rather intriguingQuote"It's going to be really hard to find a jury in North Idaho that finds me guilty for shooting a wolf to save my stinking dogs," he said.I am not saying he is wrong, but when you put it into context, he has a valid argument. The public sentiment in North Idaho is pretty anti-wolf. The stupid part even if you believe he is right, is that he doesn't plan to hire an attorney. It is one thing to represent yourself for a traffic citation or possibly in small claims court, but it takes someone that is relatively learned in the process of going through Jury selection to handle a jury selection. You need to be able to ask the right questions and know when to compromise and know when to dismiss potential jurors. The prosecution has the advantage in this piece of the process. I would also suggest the Jury has to follow the law whether they like the case or not, so he is putting himself at some extreme risk.I look forward to seeing how this plays out
The guy doesn't seem too bright. I don't see it turning out well
I would also suggest the Jury has to follow the law whether they like the case or not, so he is putting himself at some extreme risk.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me. No problem killing a wolf to protect his dogs. Buying a tag after the fact and trying to pass it off as a legal harvest - problem.
Quote from: whacker1 on February 02, 2015, 08:10:48 AMI would also suggest the Jury has to follow the law whether they like the case or not, so he is putting himself at some extreme risk.Not completely accurate. His best defense is to appeal to the jury that the underlying statute(s) are unenforceable. This is called "jury nullification," as has long been part of the English common law heritage. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullificationTo be clear, the bench will be very hostile to any attempt to inform the jury of their prerogative to nullify the law! The American justice system (both at the federal level and the state level) jealously guards against jury nullification. New Hampshire alone specifically allows the defense to notify the jury of this traditional right.I, too, will watch this with interest. My best advice for him? Tell the truth, all of it, and ask the jury to acquit. If the judge is flexible, she will allow the defendant to make his case--and NOT tell the jury that they MUST find guilty if they believe he committed the crime. Under the concept of jury nullification, even if the jury believes him guilty of the crime, they do not have to find him guilty if they believe his actions were justifiable.
I will be following this...I would bet given the area that this will be used as a push back against the wolf issue choked down peoples throat. I bet he represents himself as an additional slap.Do you wonder why the $20k reward has not caught the wolf "Poacher" in the NE? How do you think the farmer that shot the wolf Near Pullman is going to work out? 2 can play the "Game"
He's "not a trophy hunter" but he wanted to keep the trophy. He's not going to be convicted for killing the wolf or "trying to protect his dogs". Hes going to be convicted for trying to possess something he didn't have a license to possess. Had he immediately called Idaho F&G and turned it over, he wouldn't be in this mess.
The best thing this guy could have done is want a jury trial ...let them run the system to see what will come of it ..by saying you want a jury trial will definitely turn the table ...Never surrender to the law without a fight ...they want you to plead guilty , that's the cheapest way for them to convict you ! I can not take the side of anyone who is running with the wolf !
If i was on his juslry he would not be convicted of anything for shooting a menace or keeping its dead shell.
Quote from: fastdam on February 04, 2015, 10:57:21 AMIf i was on his juslry he would not be convicted of anything for shooting a menace or keeping its dead shell.I suspect that attitude would come out in voir dire and the potential juror would not be selected.
