Post by: bearpaw on February 02, 2015, 01:44:55 AM
Rathdrum man opts for jury trial
Quote
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.
read more: http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_820326b1-aa8f-53ca-b1d6-692f105debc1.html (http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_820326b1-aa8f-53ca-b1d6-692f105debc1.html)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 02, 2015, 06:23:27 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 02, 2015, 07:02:04 AM
Post by: jamesfromseattle on February 02, 2015, 07:15:07 AM
Post by: jasnt on February 02, 2015, 07:18:48 AM
Post by: jackelope on February 02, 2015, 07:59:07 AM
Post by: jasnt on February 02, 2015, 08:06:06 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 02, 2015, 08:10:48 AM
Quote
"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
Post by: jasnt on February 02, 2015, 08:19:46 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 02, 2015, 08:32:25 AM
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
Do they even use jury trials in Idaho for F&G violations? Or do you just go before a judge?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 02, 2015, 08:33:59 AM
Post by: Curly on February 02, 2015, 08:51:52 AM
I'm also surprised about the adjective he used for his dogs......"stinkin'". :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 02, 2015, 09:12:54 AM
The guy doesn't seem too bright. I don't see it turning out well
Yeah, he should've taken the $200 fine.
Post by: pd on February 02, 2015, 10:25:17 AM
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 (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.
Post by: Special T on February 03, 2015, 08:24:00 AM
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"
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 03, 2015, 08:52:06 AM
Post by: Hoythunter on February 03, 2015, 08:56:51 AM
Post by: Special T on February 03, 2015, 01:54:57 PM
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.
Post by: carpsniperg2 on February 03, 2015, 02:12:51 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 03, 2015, 02:18:09 PM
Post by: b0bbyg on February 03, 2015, 02:26:35 PM
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 (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. :chuckle:
But three days was not too bad, The guy peddling drugs outside the school area was locked in a room for much longer...
Post by: Skillet on February 03, 2015, 02:27:08 PM
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. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 03, 2015, 02:34:29 PM
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.
Post by: Special T on February 03, 2015, 05:18:51 PM
Post by: Dan-o on February 03, 2015, 05:34:19 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 03, 2015, 07:08:00 PM
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.
:yeah: 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.
Post by: Bob33 on February 03, 2015, 07:11:10 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2015, 07:36:34 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 04, 2015, 08:34:35 AM
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.
Post by: Curly on February 04, 2015, 09:23:48 AM
Pretty stupid of him not to have a wolf tag or two while he's out walking around in wolf country anyway.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 04, 2015, 09:40:18 AM
Post by: jasnt on February 04, 2015, 10:02:30 AM
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 ! :twocents:i agree. I just don't like the idea of him representing him self unless he has a strong knowledge of the law. If he dosent a good prosecuter will tear him down quickly
Post by: fastdam on February 04, 2015, 10:57:21 AM
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 ! :twocents:
I agree. Considering his location he may have a chance at jury nullification. Also....more people should demand jury trials. The court system has limited resources and if everyone made them spend the money for a trial, they would be forced to stop pestering us with petty things. They would be forced to focus in real crime. I agree make them work for it. If i was on his juslry he would not be convicted of anything for shooting a menace or keeping its dead shell.
Post by: Bob33 on February 04, 2015, 11:07:16 AM
If 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.
Post by: Bean Counter on February 04, 2015, 11:14:04 AM
Post by: idaho guy on February 04, 2015, 11:27:03 AM
Post by: fastdam on February 06, 2015, 05:31:39 AM
If 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.
I dont know why you would suspect that. Considering that i already know the judges lie to jurors about thier right and abilty to judge the law as well as the defendants actions, and considering the prosecution would surely weed out anyone who wont co-operate with thier legal farce, i would appear vanilla, average, and un-interesting. I would not wear my "live free or die" shirt and a confederate hat. Maybe just dress like everyone else and play along. I have been in on a few jury pools that never made it to trial but i was in the selected group. Its not hard.