Jury finds you can cross corners in Carbon County.

Elk Mountain as viewed from Shirley Basin.

Big news on the public access to lands front:

Jury finds four corner-crossing hunters not guilty of trespass

Now, what this isn't.

It isn't a court declaration that's binding precedent on the whole state.  It's one jury, in a circuit court case. That's it.

It does mean that these four guys are not going to be convicted.

And beyond that, it shows that juries, quite frankly, are unlikely to convict anyone for corner crossing.  Not only in Carbon County, but anywhere in the state.

And it doesn't end the issue, actually.  A civil suit remains, and it's far more likely to have a bigger impact, as it will likely be the one that ultimately goes to the Supreme Court and the Wyoming Supreme Court will then determine the issue.

It does send a signal, however, both to courts (of course) but to the legislature on how average Wyomingites view these issues, and that likely is summed up by a comment made in court by the defendants' lawyer:

He believed the whole mountain was his and that no one but [he] was allowed to be there … like a king.”

DEFENSE ATTORNEY RYAN SEMERAD ON RANCH OWNER FRED ESHELMAN

Eschelman is an entrepreneur who is noted for his charitable donations. . . and his donations to right wing politicians as well.  He's apparently humble and generous. Not so generous, however, that the South Carolinian saw fit to just turn a blind eye to this matter or to generally allowing some of the less well funded access to public land, not his land, on his Wyoming ranch.

The original encounter, moreover, was caught on audio and video, with Eschelman's employee stating to law enforcement;“Do they realize how much money my boss has? …and property?”

And indeed, his having a Wyoming ranch brings to mind Thomas Wolfe's comment on that in his book A Man In Full.

On the topic of decisions, this also points out the dangers of pursuing something best left untouched, something that was pointed out a couple of years ago in the Wyoming ve. Herrera case.  Sometimes, there are issues that you'd rather leave undecided.

Indeed here, the County Attorney, an elected official, made the decision to prosecute, no doubt based on prior interpretations of the law, which would have favored the same.  But in doing so, she's accidentally taken the side of a wealthy out of stater against the interest of common Wyomingites.  This probably never crossed her mind, but it likely has crossed the mind of a lot of locals by this point, and the effective statements of the defense now doubt have taken root.  Eschelman, in the words of the defense, is a would be king and oppressor.  I've now seen public comments that the County Attorney prosecuted as she was influenced by his wealth.  That's extremely unlikely, she was probably influenced by the law, and may very well not be in the class to whom this issue is dear to the heart, but she's no doubt aware that it is to many now.  How this also plays out is yet to be seen.

And indeed, this takes us back to the topic of allmannsretten, which we've addressed elsewhere.

As noted, this story is still playing out.  It'll be very interesting to see where it goes ultimately.