Wolf shooter turns down deal, Rathdrum man opts for jury trial

[DOUBLELUNG]

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. 

[Hoythunter]

I'm a firm believer that your first loss is your best loss; this guy should've taken his beating and moved on.  He's screwed in my opinion.

[Special T]

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.

Im inclined to agree.

That said i think that people in N ID are going overlook his transgressions as a way to send a message to the powers that be... THAT is why im so interested in following this.

[carpsniperg2]

I don't think he understands. No one has a problem with him saving his dogs. It's the 2nd part, him buying a tag and trying to keep it that he is in trouble for. He should have just paid the dang fine because he did break the law and move on.

[huntnphool]

I'm betting he is right, I seriously doubt a entire jury in that area will find him guilty.

[b0bbyg]

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.

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_nullification

To 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.

Yeah I was on a jury selection once and got in an argument with the judge about Jury Nullification. He was trying to convince me that it was not my place as a juror to judge a law.  Thought they would never select me but I was wrong. Three days later I was done.
But three days was not too bad, The guy peddling drugs outside the school area was locked in a room for much longer...

[Skillet]

I think he does understand, but I think he thinks because his drinking buddies at the bar have ALL told him it's a load of bull, he can convince a sober group of jurors of the same.
I predict he is going to bury himself out of ignorance, and play the martyr later.  Any man who represents himself in a court of law has a fool for a client.

It's too bad, too, since a $200 fine is really an olive branch being offered by a prosecutor who probably doesn't want to prosecute an unpopular crime like this.  He publicly turned it down, so he'll be publicly made an example of.   

[pianoman9701]

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"

This is a completely different scenario from the $20K wolf. The man shot a game animal, not a protected animal, and tried to cover up the kill after the fact. If he was really protecting his dogs, what need was there to cover it up and buy a tag later? A mentally-challenged prosecutor should be able to get a guilty verdict on this guy.

[Special T]

Pman the point i was trying to make is that I belive the same Motivation for not "outing" the wolf poacher would be the one aquitting the guy in ID.

[Dan-o]

He should have paid the fine......   I think he's screwed.

[idaho guy]

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.

  I was behind this guy at first but he is being a dink. He did everything right- up until trying to turn the wolf in on a tag he bought AFTER killing the wolf. I think everyone should shoot as many wolves as legally possible.  I dont think he gets that the jury will support shooting the wolf but not breaking the law to keep the hide. He will be convicted and should have taken the 200 dollar slap on the wrist.         

[Bob33]

I will be surprised if he is not convicted.

[bobcat]

A $200 fine was a great deal for him, and then it would have been over. I can't believe he didn't take it. You would never get off for that cheap in Washington for killing a wolf.

[jackelope]

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.

Agree...if he just left well enough alone and killed the wolf to protect his dogs, he probably would've been fine.
Call IDFG, say hey...this wolf just tried to hamstring my dog so I shot it to protect them.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[Curly]

Yeah.  And if he really wanted a wolf pelt, after reporting the killing of the wolf while protecting his dogs, he should have simply bought a wolf tag or two and waited for another opportunity at a wolf. 

Pretty stupid of him not to have a wolf tag or two while he's out walking around in wolf country anyway.