Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[Rainier10]

Hey, on another note, seeing how it is Sept 1st today, I wonder if TR is stalking a bull right now as we sit here in Hunt-Wa?  I'm not jealous, but I do wish I was out hunting branch bull elk right now instead of sitting inside behind a computer.

I know if I had that tag I would be out there knocking down a big one today for sure.

[OutHouse]

The prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.

We know the other guy is a liar? Who are you to make that statement and then bring in everybody else with the word we? We know you are not very bright. You say you do defense work, I guess you claim that if you are a janitor or something in a attorneys office. Clearly you are not a defense attorney,  or you would know not all calls in regional office's  are recorded.  Even Morgan Grant who the calls were made to doesn't deny they were made. Stick to cleaning the windows and let the big Kids do do the thinking.

You don't know anything about me. If I am wrong about the recording I can accept that. For your info, I am an attorney, I do defense work, and it takes a pretty bright person to finish in the top third of their law school class. You sound like a jealous person--the first thing you did was deny what I am, pretty funny actually. When I used the word "we" I wasn't including whiny, butt-hurt sympathizers like yourself. Even if I was a janitor--how is that a bad thing? You have shown everyone that you have disdain for people who do such work. In so doing, you revealed to everyone that you're a snob. You have embarrassed yourself with such childish attacks.

Wow! You call a person that you don't know, or know anything about a liar publicly on a forum. A guy who bravely served this county in the armed forces. And I sound like a jeleous person? You really are a special kind of special. And no I have no problem at all with janitors or any other honest profession. Was just pointing out you clearly are not an attorney or at the very least a poor one. A good one would not be making flat out false statements like you did on a public forum.

Again, you're not saving any face here. I accepted that my statement could be wrong, yet you showed your true colors about how you feel about people who work certain jobs. You called me a janitor as an insult--it's plainly obvious from the comment (talk about a special kind of special as you say). Taking it back is too little too late, and its there for anyone to read. You reveal a lot about yourself when you write without thinking. I can comment on public topics just like anyone else and if I am wrong I can accept that. It's obvious that you are just a whiny sympathizer. And by they way, if I am such a bad attorney then I wouldn't be making a ton of money from happy clients three years out of law school. I'll let my client's and my bank account speak to that. I may have been wrong in the beginning, but now I am having fun picking apart your nonsense commentary!

[Rainier10]

I see we are back to working on closing this thread, moving it to Off Topics, or banning some posters. 

Real quality.

Can we stop with the name calling, comparing bank accounts or organ size? How does any of that relate to the topic? 

A phone call was made and Grant Morgan gave his side of the phone call in the report.  There was no mention of a recording in the report, not to say one doesn't exist.  The WDFW may have one and the defense may have it recorded some how.  I am sure there is another version of that call that hopefully will be brought out in the trial.  If there is no recording somewhere in the middle of those two versions is where the truth probably lies.

[OutHouse]

I see we are back to working on closing this thread, moving it to Off Topics, or banning some posters. 

Real quality.

Can we stop with the name calling, comparing bank accounts or organ size? How does any of that relate to the topic? 

A phone call was made and Grant Morgan gave his side of the phone call in the report.  There was no mention of a recording in the report, not to say one doesn't exist.  The WDFW may have one and the defense may have it recorded some how.  I am sure there is another version of that call that hopefully will be brought out in the trial.  If there is no recording somewhere in the middle of those two versions is where the truth probably lies.

You're right. I'm done replying to the sympathizer. He thought calling someone a janitor as an insult didn't reflect his negative feelings about people who work that job. Had to set him straight.

[jackelope]

The Cboom/Pinetar bet was $100 to the youth turkey hunt fund. Hope that helps.

[cboom]

The Cboom/Pinetar bet was $100 to the youth turkey hunt fund. Hope that helps.

 

[popeshawnpaul]

The prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.

Except, the calls aren't recorded and weren't in this case...  We know from the WDFW affidavit there was a call but they disagree on what the conversation was about and the response.  TR decided to execute the speedy waiver and that was his choice.  He could call the witness and they could only shut him down on questions where he is admitting to a crime.  From his statement he did not commit a crime.  He can testify to much of what he was advised if they can get around heresay.

Except they won't get around hearsay with an exception and the only other reason to say what was said would be for the truth of the statement. They have a hearsay problem, no doubt. I don't know what he said, but there is a very good argument that he is an accomplice for aiding and abetting the crime that took place. His statement may not admit guilt, but the circumstances are perfect for the prosecutor to charge him as an accomplice. Of course, accomplice liability is the same as the liability of the principal. Both of their gooses are cooked, but like I said all he needs is one holdout juror.

I've had thousands of statements admitted in court.  Much of what was said can come in.  Probably all if you are a savvy enough attorney but we won't go into that.  Now that this co-defendant is charged many of the statements are an admission by a party-opponent under ER 801(d)(2) and not hearsay at all.  Further, the statement from WDFW to the co-defendant would not be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted for TR in his case.

It's all pointless as TR will undoubtedly play the victim with the co-D being charged, kill a big bull any day with his special tag, and take the diversion agreement.  He won't hunt for a year and have this dismissed next fall before the end of hunting season and kill another bull next year.  If it doesn't go down that way I would be flabbergasted.  As for the co-D, that's a different analysis.

[Rainier10]

Would you say the co-D is up the proverbial creek with out a paddle or the money to buy a paddle?

[Rainier10]

One more time, let's keep this on topic.

[rosscrazyelk]

Am I reading this right, Riechert has the tag again?

[jackelope]

Am I reading this right, Riechert has the tag again?

Where ya been?

[Rainier10]

Am I reading this right, Riechert has the tag again?

It's hard to sift through some of this thread but yes he has the tag this year here and in Pennsylvania.

[teanawayslayer]

And south central combo

[Rainier10]

And south central combo

really? That's what bullwinkle was shot with correct?

[JakeLand]

Makes no sense    how is it possible that he's able to hunt or fish with charges pending on a wildlife violation