Does the aldeer jury (who obviously have not attempted to understand the law) realize that a VERY pro hunter district judge found these kids guilty? A very solid circuit judge found these kids guilty. Five (5) justices on the Alabama court of ciriminal appeals reviewed the case and upheld the conviction. 2 Alabama Supreme Court justices would have upheld if in the majority. 9 of the best legal minds in this State thought the evidence supported a conviction yet the Aldeer jury thinks this is the conspiracy of the century! The Supreme Court of Alabama overturned the conviction only by making a radical change in the law! Furthermore, if you read cases often you will realize that the Supreme Court probably would have upheld these convictions if the State had not put all their eggs on the Rogers v State basket. Yet given all this the Aldeer jury who usually picks everything apart by the hair is not even taking the time to understand the law because they are so busy throwing a hunter friendly member of this site under the bus. Yes he said if one of the boys admitted he would have not found the others guilty. The law allowed him to find them all guilty! That's not why the circuit judges opinion was reversed. Happens literally everyday. Cops pull over a car find drugs. Nobody admits and all get charged. Again I don't know this Judge but reading this bullshit attacking his character out of pure ignorance I just can't take it no more. And none of the sleuths on Aldeer are saying chit. Read the case or shut yo mouth. And by the way I am glad the kids were found not guilty. I have defended many people charged with night hunting in my 23 years of practicing law and Rogers v State was unAmericun. And by the way the fact these Judges have gone to small town Alabama to make a living has no bearing whatsoever on their ability to practice. So their you have it. And Wiley if you call me an idiot again we can meet and discuss it like men. I'm done.

If you look at the history of this country you'll see that it was won and defended by standing up to tranny. The same type of tranny stated in your post, "I'll quote something from something I had nothing to do with." Read a leather bound copy of Common Sense by the great Thomas Paine then beat yourself in the head with it.

Ant, I think the ruffled feathers over the state's definition of hunting at night was the smaller issue in this instance. I think what caused the most heartburn was that the state didn't seem to meet the burden of proof. Hearing a noise but not being sure where it came from hardly constitutes "beyond a reasonable doubt". The fact that a guilty verdict was handed down and then upheld all the way to the Supreme Court is downright sickening. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and that did not seem to be the case here. There was no proof, only suspicion. It's a painful reminder that those who often cannot pay to defend themselves properly can easily get railroaded. Maybe it doesn't cause you heartburn because you can't envision yourself ever being in that boat. A lot of us live in that boat.

But under Rogers v Sfafe the only thing the State had to prove was 1. You were in an area where deer were 2. You had some light 3. You had a gun. I personally think the law was bullshit but given ALL the facts this is nof a story of some out of control Judge. And how many members on here could identify a rifle shot 140 yards away????

And Wiley if you call me an idiot again we can meet and discuss it like men.

Box 188. Centreville. . I prefer Petunias.

Well damn, I've already sent you some watermelon.

Box 188. Centreville. . I prefer Petunias.

If the judge did nothing wrong, as Ant says, why would he go back and delete his reasoning? It certainly appears that something wasn't exactly right.

If the judge did nothing wrong, as Ant says, why would he go back and delete his reasoning? It certainly appears that something wasn't exactly right.

The fact that he felt the need to comment on it on a public forum on the WORLD WIDE WEB blows me away. As does the fact that these 3 were convicted with no evidence whatsoever.