" Siccum Go gettum...........Protect us society.............It's amazing how things are justfied when a particular outcome is desired...............Maybe the prosecutor can figure out how to prosecute the parents..........Now- a- days it seems the prosecutors are definately interested in padding their portfolio / time sheet...........I question the heart felt motivation of righting a wrong.........Which by the way can't be done.............................Justice? "

" All though O don't condone a 20ish man sleeping with a 15 year old girl at least he has married her. At this point I see no point of charging him. If he ends up going to prison it is one more child with out a father and one more family that the state takes care of for several years. "

" What a bizarre distortion of justice. The wife clearly doesn't see herself as victimized. What's she going to say? "Yes, we slept together. I got pregnant. We married. We're happy together with our child." And the government - that bastion of probity - will say "a-hah! See, you were victimized and we - the government - have to protect all the other 15-year-olds out there! So, therefore, you have to testify that he slept with you so we can put him away" Can somebody help me out here? How 'bout investigating and prosecuting elected public officials for bribery and corruption? Surely there are more Ted Stevens's out there. Maybe even in - God forfend - Wyoming! "

" Are you kidding me...this is rediculous. I also don't condone 25 y/o's sleeping with 15 y/o's, but FFS...at least he married her and is raising his child. It seems these days that most of-age couple can't even accomplish that. Why force her to send her love, husband, and child's father to prison if she doesn't feel wronged. Just like the Duke lacross team, this just shows that prosecutors don't care about the situation, they only care about winning their case no matter who they wrongly bring down. Justice my what?? "

" the state should have prosecuted before the marriage. It's too late now. Let them be. "

" This case will help to convict spouses that batter their spouses. Many times in domestic violence situations spouses later try to recant because they are afraid of testifying against a spouse. We do not know the underlying circumstances of how a 25 year old convinced a 15 year old to have sex, and the 25 year old should not have even suggested that he would have sex with the 15 year old. The fact that he married her is not a good reason NOT to prosecute, but rather it may be considered as a mitigating circumstance in what kind of sentence will be given to the Defendant. I just thought it was appropriate to comment in favor of the decision because we do need to protect victims that sometimes because of a battered situation are simply unable to protect themselves. "

" Who first brought charges against this man? How did all this get started. Did the parents complain to the officials, someone please fill me in on this. Not to be judgemental, but if the couple are happy and are giving their child a good home, why mess it up. My grandmother was 15 when she married my Grandpa, he was 24. They had 3 children and were happily married for 65 years. It is possible !!! "

" Prosecutor-As I said in my earlier post I don't condone that this man slept with a 15 year old.

However I was in law enforcement for over 20 years in Wyoming. I would dispute your claim that this couple getting married could lead to domestic violence down the road. There is no more link to this couple and domestic violence then there is any other couple getting married and domestic violence. If it does lead to domestic violence the laws are already there for the officer to arrest even if the victim doesn't want to pursue it.

The Department of Family Services needs to stay out of this one as does the Laramie County Attorneys office and let this couple live their lives with out interference. "

" Prosecutor is right on the money! What kind of man has sex with a 15 year old girl???? He obviously has very very poor judgement. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The fact that he has fathered a child with such a young girl is even more reason to prosecute him. What kind or reasoning and judgement skills does a 15 year old have??? He obviously took advantage of her youth and inexperience.

Send him up the river! "

" This 25 year old man, husband and father, who made a foolish mistake, should "plead not guilty" to whatever he is charged with, and the jury should acquit him. Otherwise the state will place his name upon the sex offenders registry for the rest of his life. This will probably make living a normal life impossible for him, his wife and his children.

This Wyoming Supreme Court decision is a somewhat tortured interpretation of the law concerning spousal testimony. If the state is successful in presenting a legal circumstance in which a spouse can be compelled to testify against their wife or husband, then the state will attempt to expand this circumstance to all kinds of cases and all kinds of circumstances. The state always does this when it wins a very questionable determination from a court. This ruling gives credibility to all prosecutors seeking to expand the rules of spousal testimony to suit their particular desire to prosecute someone for something.

Plead "not guilty" and demand a jury trial. A jury has an obligation to nullify this decision in this case, or what will the state's prosecutors try next. The legislature blew it big time when they included the part of the law that does not provide exemption for spousal testimony if either spouse is a victim of a crime by the other. This means that if a husband and wife get into a shouting match and one or the other happens to lightly slap the other, then the state can prosecute the slapper and can compel the slappee to testify against their husband or wife. Very bad law. Very bad law. No common sense or foresight on the part of the legislature at all. Just another example of how easily your legislators bend to the will of police and prosecutors without considering the possibility of many different circumstances or the unintended consequences this law has caused. This is what happens when stupid people get to make laws. Their claim that this law is necessary because a spouse may be to afraid or to intimidated to press charges and testify against their spouse is total Bu ll Sh....t! This claim is empty B.S., and law enforcement knows it.

The empty headed legislature should have seen right through this and made it clear that if the alleged victim does not want to prosecute or testify, that should be their unqualified right. Why should this family be destroyed because of the idiocy of a state legislature that just goes along with whatever police and prosecutors manipulated them into believing was necessary. The need for protection of a spouse from being compelled to testify against his or her spouse far outweighs the extraordinarily rare circumstances when a spouse victim should be compelled to testify against their husband or wife. By the legislature's logic, all spouses in the state should be trapped in this "forced to testify box", because there might be a one in a thousand case where a spouse is to afraid of their spouse to testify against them. This law does nothing to protect husbands and wives, it just gives the state's prosecutors one more ill-constructed tool with which they can convict and jail people and destroy families and lives. This is what happens when you have a "dead from the neck up" legislature that su....cks up to police and prosecutors every whim. The law should have contained language that would provide for a spouse to legally opt out of testifying against his or her spouse if the alleged spousal victim refuses to testify, and the state cannot prove that the spouse victim is refusing to testify out of fear of retaliation from their husband or wife. That would have made sense. The law we have does not. The court is somewhat handicapped by the wording of the current law.

This wife and young mother should defy the short-sighted brainless stupidity of the state legislature. They cannot keep her in jail forever, and the families of these two people should raise the money from a common sense Wyoming public, (donations in other words), for a defense against the state when it attempts to take their child from them while the mother and father are held in jail. This is just exactly the type of dirty, underhanded style of prosecutorial extortion that the state will probably try in order to break these people and destroy a family. All of course in the name of upholding the law. All because a young, foolish 25 year old man had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. By the way the laws are very obsolete when it comes to these things anyway. Consider the actual maturity and worldliness of a 15 year old girl today. "What" is full of it. Most 15 year olds possess at least as much reasoning and judgment as an 18 year old did 25 years ago. Yes, there must be cutoffs in life, but this is a situation of inflexible stupidity. "What" needs to be sent to the 21st century, or back to the 19th century when marriage, sex and childbirth by women in their mid teens to men 10 years older was very common place and produced no problems at all. Suddenly 3/4 of the way through the 20th century these same biological people with even more experience and education than ever before need the state to protect them?!!??! Bu...ll Sh...t! This is just more of the contemporary style of passing hundreds of thousands of laws giving the state more and more control over peoples' private lives.

By the way, a jury has the right to produce any finding it chooses regardless of what a judge may instruct it to do. Jury instructions are a new invention in the American justice process, whereas the judge can attempt to do an "end run" around a jury and control the findings of a jury by instructing a jury what they must consider and what they must conclude. It is just a new, slick way for the state to circumvent the jury trial process, and essentially dictate to a jury what it must decide. If you ever sit on a jury for any case of any kind, ignore the judge completely when he or she attempts this illegal and unconstitutional preemption of a juries right to decide a case based on their own considerations.

Don't ever be intimidated by a judge, lawyer or prosecutor into thinking you must deliberate and arrive at a verdict that they insist the law requires you to find. This is just another attempt by the state to destroy the right to a jury trial and change the constitution without going through the amendment process. "

" Hal- you act like it was some whimsical arbitrary act to place the laws we have. Was this girl legally emancipated from her parents thus making her an adult in the eyes of the law? Why do we have an age of consent at 18? Why do you have to be 18 to vote? 21 to drink? 35 to run for President? All these laws are in place for a reason. I pity the person that reflects on the "olden days" of their grand parents and rationalizes the sexual assult of 15 year old girl. We are not talking about two high school students having fun on a Friday night- this is a 25 year old man having sex with a child (read the statutes). You can't argue the facts. This was clearly wrong and he should be punished. Hal wants to turn a blind eye because these two are allegedly happily married and raising this child. I'm guessing this is a rare circumstance. "

" Hey Hal, do you know that a judge can set aside a jury verdict at his discretion? He doesn't need to manipulate things with the jury instructions. "

" A judge CANNOT set aside a finding of "not guilty" by a jury. A judge CAN set aside a finding of "guilty" by a jury with good cause. Once a jury provides a verdict of "not guilty", the accused is permanently acquitted and cannot be tried again in a criminal proceeding for the same crime(s).

Whether this is a rare circumstance or not, "What", the legislature still blew it when they did not include language in the law that allows a spouse to be exempt from testifying against their husband or wife when they refuse, and the state cannot PRIOVE their refusal is a result of fear of retaliation from their spouse.

If you study the origin of many of our laws, even contemporary laws, you will find that many of them came into being as a result of some legislative whimsical arbitration, and often such laws are the result of ad hoc public or legislative hysteria and ignorant extremism. Our laws must be crafted to accommodate the realistic circumstances of the world we live in. Legislative bodies need to very carefully consider as many of the possibilities of life that they can when deciding what should be the law. Blanket laws that do not provide for the flexibility necessary to acknowledge reality are usually bad laws.

I do not condone a 25 year old man having sexual relations with a female under the age of 18. I know the statutes quite well. I also do not condone destroying these peoples' lives in order to satisfy a statute that may not be a reasonable law for many circumstances.

I am not very old, but when I consider the lifestyles and the circumstances of human existence some 100 years ago in this country, I am tempted to say it was a much better time overall. Yes, modern life has produced some good things such as advances in medicine, many improvements in inventions providing convenience, and improved racial relations, but we have gone backwards in many ways too. Our population is to large for our natural resources. Our personal freedoms have been substantially eroded. Our care for each other has diminished terribly. Intrusion into our private lives by the state has proven to be disastrous. Our laws are reactionary and not useful or productive. This case is an example of the inflexibility of our thinking and our society. "

" Not only have our personal freedoms been eroded in the last hundred years......................But by societys demand big brother increasingly wants to take care of our every want and need..........The correlation is kinda obvious.. "

" I see it everyday. "

" The old adage "...ignorance of the the law is no excuse..." serves this situation well. If he married her first before he had sex with her- the state has no case. That doesn't appear to be what happened. I don't think I believe this man was "...ignorant of the law..." either- I would like to think he knew that having sex with a 15 year old child was wrong. One last question is did he marry her because she was pregnant? "

" The main issue here "What", is the supreme court ruling based upon the Wyoming statute that compels a spouse to testify against a wife or husband. The specific charge of sexual assault of a minor is secondary to this conversation. Not unimportant of course, just secondary to what the main question of the blog is concerned with. The issue of this man's innocence or guilt of the charges and how the state intends to proceed is not exactly the issue of this blog. My focus about this event is on the larger question of the wisdom of the statute concerning compelled testimony as it is currently written. I don't really have an opinion about the innocence or guilt of the accused in this case. BTW, who ever claimed ignorance of the law in this story?

That is an old adage alright, and it is legally incorrect. There are many instances in law where a person cannot and is not held responsible for violating a law, when there was no reasonable way the person could be aware of the existence of said law.

Case in point: In Louisiana, the state has a requirement that motorists drive in the right lane on many of the states highways, except when passing another slower moving vehicle also traveling in the right lane. On many occasions motorists from outside the State of Louisiana have been pulled over by law enforcement authorities and given misdemeanor tickets for driving in the left lane.

Everyone who challenged these tickets had the charges dismissed. Reason: The State of Louisiana was to cheap to place any signs on these highways mentioning this requirement to motorists. It was just kind of an inside joke sort of thing, that only people who lived in Louisiana were aware of, and not all of them were aware of it either. Since many states do not have such driving requirements, it was decided that unless the state made a reasonable effort to make people aware of this law, then there was no legal justification for fining people from out of state that did not know Louisiana had such a requirement. These people were "ignorant of the law" but were found to be not responsible for violating it. There are many other such snafus in American law like this one. Sorry we are way off focus now. The issue of the statutes language and intent should be reconsidered by the legislature. "

" Hal- your strugling to find any argument to plead your case. I can't believe that you would compare driving in the left lane to sexual assult? Let's hope you're trying to become a prosecutor and not a defense attorney- it's that kind of babble and rhetoric that wastes the courts time and money. The state is prosecuting based on the crime committed against the 15 year old child- the fact that they are now married is really irrelevant unless like I said- they should have married first and then had sex. BTW- what is the statute of limitations for sexual assult on children in Wyo? Oh, that's right- there isn't any. Re-read 6-2-307 adn 308. It doesn't get any more clear than that. "

" Hal-you should get on other stories and comment. This place needs some smart, common sense people like you that have the knowledge you do.
By the way I was married as a minor to an adult. Technically if my parents had wanted to make a complaint-he could still be in jail. Instead we are parents of three and will celebrate our 14th wedding anniversary in 4days. "

" The sheer obtuse ignorance of "What" is nothing short of tragic. As I wrote earlier "What" I do not have an opinion as to the merits of this case one way or the other. My concern is only with statute concerning spousal testimony. You are struggling, (cop), yes you identified yourself very quickly, to find any way to avoid addressing the main point of my concern with this issue which is the spousal testimony. I am certain that the only reason you do not want to address the issue concerning this flawed legislative product is because making a case against this person might be very difficult without the wife's testimony. Besides, being a cop, naturally you want to be able to force husbands and wives to testify against each other over the most minor of conflicts in order to get convictions and jail and fine people. You don't really care about any possible victims here, just the ability to convict and jail people.

"What", you are the one who introduced the "old adage" of "ignorance of the law not being an excuse". I only bothered to mention my earlier example (Louisiana) about this adage being "bu...ll sh...it" because you wanted to use it as a reasonable legal perspective concerning the application of the law, which it isn't.

As far as this particular case is concerned, I do not know what exactly is to be accomplished by prosecuting this man. Your version is that he flat out broke the law and should be prosecuted. By the way, cop, I know the Wyoming statutes better than you do, so don't try to score any points with the readers with your pathetic ability to pull up the statutes and quote them. Anyone can do that. Probably this 25 year old man should have done this. The question now is what should be done and to what purpose?

If the prosecutor in this case honestly believes that proceeding with a case against this man, and obviously he does or he would not have asked the court to uphold the spousal testimony exception, then that is what he should do. It is understandable if the true motivation of the prosecution is to uphold the integrity of the law. A courtroom is the best place for this matter to be settled. If a jury decides that the law is reasonable, and that this person knowingly violated it, then that will be their finding.

My only concern is with the compelled spousal testimony being a part of the trial proceedings. I believe that if the prosecution proceeds with this case, then they should proceed with their case without the compelled testimony of the "alleged" victim. If the prosecutor does not feel he can win a conviction without the wife's testimony, who by the way does not want to testify against her husband, then why bring the case in this particular situation?

The prosecutor is not interested in any sense of justice for the "alleged" victim here. The prosecutor is saying the victim is the State of Wyoming, and some perhaps very flawed and obsolete statutes. The prosecutor is seeking to protect the statutes, not a person. The prosecutor is seeking to protect, speculatively speaking of course, future 15 year olds from having sex with an adult person. The quest of this prosecutor should be decided in a trial by an impartial jury of Wyoming people, not an impartial jury of Wyoming legislators. "

" i thought this was normal in wyoming! "

" Hal- finally you admit it-"...The prosecutor is seeking to protect the statutes, not a person. The prosecutor is seeking to protect, speculatively speaking of course, future 15 year olds from having sex with an adult person. "
The only questions they are going to ask the spouse are 1) what age were you when you first had intercourse? 2) did the defendant know your age at the time? 3) did you lie about your age, pretend or in any way lead the defendat to beleive that you were older than 15 before you had intercourse? That's it- 3 questions in an effort to deter future 15 and 25 year olds from going down this same path. They will obviously ask the husband- 1) did you know she was 15 when you had intercourse with her and 2) did you know that it was against the law to have sex with a 15 year old child. Pretty simple case - I don't see what all the fuss about her testifying is. "

" what man at 25 would want a 15 year old? that is the question... "

" This case is significant because, setting aside what may or may not happen if this case goes to trial, is the broader issue that I have raised at least 3 times concerning this. The fuss "What" is that the legislature needs to revisit this statute. There needs to be a modification, which I have outlined several times before in my earlier comments.

It is easy to understandable why law enforcement wants this statute. It enables them to pit husband and wife against each other in order to force an admission of an alleged crime, it enables them to more easily convict someone of an alleged crime, it forces people to more readily accept a plea bargain arrangement, and it is the first step in destroying the husband/wife testimony exemption in many other types of crimes.

From my point of view this is an abuse of the husband and wife relationship by the state, it is an abuse of the privacy of a family, it is an abuse of the long standing legal immunity husbands and wives have against an overly zealous prosecution by the state, and it is a means of further abusing an alleged victim.

This prosecution should proceed without the compelled testimony of the wife. Why does the prosecution need her testimony? How exactly does this bolster the state's case? "

" The Muni judge in Wheatland (Mark Mcdonald) should be fired and prosecuted for threatening a citizen over a request to remove an old object from the judges barely middle class property. The Morman judge (no law background or police background) apparently thinks he is omnipotent and threatened the citizen by saying "he was off his meds, maybe the person should be institutionalized, and threatened to tamper with the persons Federal benefits and make it hard on them" This Just-Us was not reprimanded by the city atty, county or state. Those rules dont apply to him but the rest of us now have to question what our wives may be forced to tell a judge or court---go figure?! "

" Hal continues to try and misguide and redirect the readers of this blog by saying the issue is about the wife testifying against her husband. The true main issue is the sexual assult of a 15 year old girl by a 25 year old man. There is no statute of limitations on sexual assult. The defense is trying to ensure that the girl can not get on the stand to confirm in her own voice that this man had sex with her when she was 15 and he was 25. The defense is trying to down play sexual assult of 15 year old girls and hide behind the marriage clause. We don't want 25 year old men having sex with 15 year old girls hoping that might get married and make everything ok. That is ridiculous. Sexual assult is sexual assult no matter how you try and comouflage it. "

" That man is sick in the head! So Hal... When you were 25 did you sleep with 15 year olds? Did you think about it and say that is okay for me to do? 15 year olds are so vulnerable and think that every boyfriend they have loves them. This guy was 10 years older then her! When she was coming out into this world he was already in school starting the 5th grade. The laws were set for a reason emancipated or not this man committed a crime. If he truly loved her he would have waited until she was a lot older to have sex with her and marry her and bare a child with her. No 15 year old has the mental maturity to honestly make a good decision on cases such as this. I had my daughter unexpectedly at 21 and wish I would have waited (mind you I love her very much and would never ever trade her for anything in the world) but even at 21 I was too young and her father was 26 and was too young. Now I know some people around our age at that time are ready and at a level where they can take on the task and do it very well! We have struggled and are raising a very advanced child I know I would not have been able to do this had I been 6 years younger! I know that for a fact. Imagine no proms, no high school parties with your friends, no going out to the lake or taking wild Cancun trips with the senior class and going to Ireland with some friends... why you ask all because she had a child. A few of my friends had a child at that age and missed out on all of it! Every single one of them regret their decisions made (NOT REGERET THEIR KIDS BUT DECISIONS!) because like every one told them they missed out on all of it. So I am sorry love or not they need to pay for breaking the law and that child will have it's father back some day and if they cooperate maybe he can get a lesser sentence! "

" Please, what, if not for the Supreme Court ruling that is compelling this young wife to testify against husband, there wouldn't be any news to be blogging about. The case is most definitely about whether the state should be able to compel a spouse to testify against the other. And, again, our Supreme Court in all her wisdom, takes away more rights of the citizens. Statutory rape is a crime, but so is taking away more and more of our rights... someone, needs to take over the legislation and start changing and fixing laws that are taking the very rights we as Americans hold dear... and one such right, is to not be forced into testifying against our spouse. Prosecute all you want, but don't force the spouse to testify. "

" Where was the law before this happened? I think there is something wrong with a 25 yr old having sex with a 15 yr old, however, a child has been made. That kid needs support from both its father and mother. Its too late now, let them be. "

" Let it go, your wasting your time with your comments and madness over a stupid "PRIVATE" issue between these 2 people and the girls parents not any of you!!!!!! "

" This is an issue of public concern, because the ruling on the spousal testimony statute can affect all of our lives. Contrary to the cop's myopic focus only on the alleged criminal event, this statute is the main focus of this blog and story. "What", you need to put your little badge down for a few seconds and consider this: Even if this particular event with these particular people had not happened, the importance of the issue remains. The legislature needs to revisit this statute and modify it to provide legal protection for citizens against forced testimony against their spouse unless the state can prove the witness will not testify out of fear of retaliation from their husband or wife.

This is the crux of the issue, cop, not just the specifics of this one little case. As I said before, if the prosecutor believes they are doing the right thing by pursuing these charges to trial, then so be it. That is the correct venue for this individual case. My point is that the wife should not be compelled against her will to testify against her husband, even if the marriage occurred after the alleged sexual relations.

By the way, this is not a sexual ASSAULT! That phrase and now legal charge on the books is a new "tv cop inspired description" for what used to be called consensual sex between a minor and an adult.

No, Weirdo, I have never had sexual relations with a minor under 19 years of age. No, I do not condone a 25 year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl. Your personal experience and opinion concerning the "proper point of readiness for sexual relations and child rearing are yours and yours alone. There are many exceptions in this world to your personal parameters of at what point someone is mature enough to make these type of life changing decisions. Granted, they are life changing and these things should be thought out very carefully by everyone engaging in sexual relations, but some people know what they want in life earlier than others. Some don't. It is very complicated. My only interest here is the statute compelling spousal testimony. "

" If the parents knowingly let a 25 year old man have sex with their 15 year old child- SoMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG. I believe that would be a criminal offense as well. Does anyone know if the parents were condoning this relationship and how long they knew about it? Not filinig a complaint or alerting the police about a felony is nothing to sneer at. "

" why don't they focus on the crime rate and stop destroying families!! seems that thats all prosecuters can WIN with. "

" HAL!!!! Come on man! It already states that if the crime was placed against the other spouse they have to testify. And loooove or no love there was a crime placed against his spouse by him. That is a fact. Whether or not they look at it like a crime IT WAS A CRIME, THEY BROKE THE LAW DANG IT! To the Black Dahlia, he didn't think he did any thing wrong should we just let it go now because at the time he didn't believe or "know" what he was doing was wrong? I am fully aware this is not as extreme as the Black Dahlia I was using that as an example! "

" Weirdo, read and think this time. My concern is only with the statute that requires spousal testimony. Ok? For the millionth time. That is my only significant interest in this story. The story is entitled "Court rules wife must testify against husband" OK? Got that? That is what the blog is about. The alleged acts and the disposition of those acts is somewhat secondary to this discussion. It could be different people and a very different alleged crime concerning a 40 year old husband and a 42 year old wife.

I know what the statute says, Weirdo, I am saying it should be modified by the legislature at the next session. As far as the guilt or innocence of a crime here, that should be put to a jury and decided by them.

Notice how the cop, "What", is already trying to find a way to arrest more people and further destroy more members of this family. I think "What" should go down there and do the investigating himself. Go ahead "What" poke around down there a little bit. Maybe we will all get lucky and things won't work out for you. Believe me our society is better off without you and your attitude. Better yet, maybe we should start investigating you and all of your activities. You may not be as anonymous as you thought you were. "

" its too late is right, there is a baby involved in this and who ever supports the incarceration of either parent is in no way any different from child molesters or anyone else who wants to hurt children because that is what will ultimately happen - a child will be hurt. Give this kid a chance. "

" What the hell was this girls parents thinking? For one Hal yes the judge can set aside what ever a jury comes up with. 2 you have to have a parent allow you even at 16 to marry. Now a child is going to more then likely loose it father. I think the parents of this girl need a kick in the you know what. Why did they not go to the cops before now? Is this girl an she is just a girl still be hurt by this man of 20 something? Is their child in danger of this young MAN? Why now? I think it is sick an wrong that a 20 yr old man would have sex with a 15 yr old girl yet they are married now and a child is in there care? So what changed? She was 15 and now she married and has a kid probbly depeds souly one this creep I have to saw and now he's going to face charges? GOOD GREEF! "

" I would be interested to know who brought this case to be. Who filed charges, who brought it to light? Why does his case need to be "the one" to set a presidence for this statute?
Why can't they use a case where 'God forbid" the spouse has been beaten. Find a case where the spouse wants to testify for a crime that has been comiited against them.
At this point, all I see in this case, is bureaucrats trying to make a point
that could yet again, backfire on the system and send young mothers of unborn babies in fear of what could happen if the fathers are over the fours older, state statute. And folks if you think this will be the case that stops young girls from sleeping with older men, or even young men and older women, THINK AGAIN. it happens poeple, and sometimes it even works out. My husband and I will very happliy celebrate our 23rd anniversary next month. When we were married in 1985, I was 16 and he was 26. We have raise two beatifuly smart, talented and caring daughters. And our almost 22 year old and her husband have given us two beatiful grandbabies of 2 and 1 yrs old.
GOD forbid anyone coming back on us at this point because of no statute of limitaions.
Life is not black and white, we live in a grey world. And just because some of us are civil servants, does not make us perfect. i believ they could have choosen a better case to make a point and set a standard. Again, WHY THIS CASE? "

" 20 years i patroled we did not need no knock warrents or gestapo tactics or being reactive to the extream rather than proactive first. You caught them fair and square or got them the next time.

to what you are an embaressment to the profession. when all the statutes in this state are enforced rather than selective enforcement then i will listen not before. so quote your statute then read the rest of them that you do not enforce. untill you start enforcing all of them you do not hold the high ground and come across as a bully with a badge.

What happened was wrong but to place the father in prison when they are married means the tax payer will pay for his incarceration and to support the child. the child will be deprived of a parent. the state gets the glory of accomplishing selective enforcement. after all this must be more important than protecting a child or wife who is being beatten by spouse or parent or the drunk that will kill someone even though his/her licence has ben revoked for multiple dui offences without spending any time to speak of in jail.

Besides that there is a probability the case will be overturned at appeal at the federal level thus wasting taxes. to me is sounds like someone has been smokin rope to even take this case on. I am so lucky i live in a town that has professional officers. so "what" please do not move here. By the way i could care less about your response to this. "

" So let me get this straight...hundreds of thousands of years of evolution vs. a law that is a few decades old...a law that will certainly brand this man for life and undoubtedly damage this family. I wonder what is the best way to convince someone to lead a criminal lifestyle? Perhaps it is branding him a criminal and disenfranchising him from mainstream society. "

" I think they should leave this couple alone. He shouldn't have had sex with a 15 year old, but it's too late now. They are legally married and raising a child together. He has done the right thing that alot of men don't do nowadays. Age is just a number anyway. Let them be happy. Are you going to support their child when the father is taken away?? "

" These comments are really scary as they indicate the mentality of fellow "beings" amongst us. All I can say is Hal is an idiot and 99% of the arguments not in favor of protecting the young, are right there with him. Are any of you up with the concept of being accountable for your actions and I don't mean by marrying her like that is going to save his pathetic a**, in any way. "

" All the wife needs to do as a witness is plead the 5th amendment,she is protected by the United
States constitution. They can make her take the stand they cannot make her testify. I wish the couple luck and hope they have a great life together, and prove the justice system wrong again. "

" I'm guessing the retired cop enforced everystatute? Probably not. I beleive there is certainly a pecking order for statutes and sexual offenses are in my top 5 that should be enforced. No one has ever said this man is going to be placed in prison "retired cop"- you're as dellusional as Hal. I guess Hal is trying to invoke a little violence against me should I choose to go "...poke around...". That is a exactly the attitude that promotes and compels people to break the law. Nice Hal, we certainly don't need more people on this earth like you. I'm thankful that the "retired cop" is retired as our values seem to be different. "

" The issue is still about the compelled spousal testimony.

OM you picked the right word to describe your mental capacity correctly "scary".

"What" relax, you can feel perfectly safe and secure, but do go poke around some. Values? Your only values demand the destruction of human lives. Your values revolve solely around the concept of "who can I arrest and incarcerate today in order to fulfill my obligation to protect the establishment." It would be a good idea "What" if you did the research and found out just who the establishment is. It would probably knock your socks off.

Sexual offenses are in your top 5 huh? Must have had some pretty serious potty training issues "What"?

The problem with you "What" is that you are a dime store cop, with TV cop wannabe aspirations. You have no idea who you really work for, or why. You are the perfect example of a cop that doesn't even know whose interests he is representing. You might try to bull sh..t yourself into thinking you serve the public, but you need to discover the truth. You serve an institution that is obsolete, feudal, extraordinarily unjust, and the heart of hypocrisy. You may think you are trying to do something good, but you are not intelligent enough, or perhaps merely not well educated enough, to understand what it is that you really do, whose interests you really represent, and what injustices you assist in implementing.

Do some personal research "What". Find out what it is that you actually do, why you do it, and to what purpose. Don't limit your perspective, look at the whole, big picture. Don't be lazy and take the easy road, dig and find out what the entire premise of your position in life is. Be honest with yourself when you ask yourself the question, "What institution am I really working for?" Maybe it would be better if you do this when you are lying on the proverbial couch with a professional close at hand. The shock of self examination of our true motives for doing and believing what we do sometimes produces some very depressing realizations.

The issue is still about the compelled spousal testimony. "

" Nice try Hal? Try anything to divert the attention away from the sexual assult of a 15 year old girl by a 25 year old man. Smoke and mirrors by Hal to deflect the heart of the issue. Next thing you know it will be that 35 year old men have the right to have sex with 15 year old girls if they marry them. (wink wink). Hal results to name calling and insulting the general intelligence of the blog readers. Hal wants you to accecpt that this is ok because he loves her and married her. This sets the presidence for futher sexual offenders to use this case as just cause for why they sexually assult young girls. They will plead not guilty and lawyers will use the Wyo vs. ???? to justify why it was ok for an adult male to have sexual intercourse with a child that is not legally able to "consent" to sex. Hal and the retired cop should be ashamed. "

" Just an FYI for the bloggers- I'm not a cop. Police training yes, cop no. Unfortunately I'm motivated by the almighty dollar to work in a profession that pays more than a cops salary- but my moral values (that have been questioned by Hal) are such that I sleep easy at night. Perfect-no (not by anyones standards I'm sure), honest- yes. I am a parent and resident of Casper (sorry retired cop- I already live here). Do I think this guy deserves a prison term?- yes- at least 3 months and yes he should register as a sex offender. There is no way you can convince me that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. In this day and age- YOU DON'T HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN IN AMERICA. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.

Do I want to destroy his family- no. If 3 months in prison and 15 year registry as a sex offender ruins his life/family- he shouldn't have had sex with a 15 year old girl.

I don't want this case to be on the books if someone takes advantage of my daughter. Is this really too much to ask? "

" The main issue of the story is still about the compelled spousal testimony.

I also do not think that a 25 year old man should be having sex with a 15 year old girl. It is against the law, but I also think the current laws need revisiting and updating to take into account the realities of the world we live in now. I have no use whatsoever for a serious sexual offender, but I also do not think in this particular instance that the man should go to jail. Probation yes absolutely, jail no. I also think that this man should not be placed on the sex offenders registry under this type of circumstance. This was not an assault! This was consensual even if the law technically claims that a 15 year old cannot consent. That law needs to be revisited too.

There is a universe of difference between a 25 year old man having sex with the consent of a 15 year old girl, and a 25 year old man forcing or coercing a 15 year old girl into having sex with him. The law needs a lot of fine tuning. The law concerning the sex offenders registry needs a lot of fine tuning as well. The registry does not provide enough information about the nature and the circumstances of the sexual offense the registered offender committed. It should provide much more detail about these events so the citizens can make their own judgment concerning the potential for danger the offender poses.

Other matters that need to be revisited is the limitations of residence that a person who is listed on the registry faces. Some people who are actually very low risk offenders are lumped into the same category with multiple forcible rape offenders and have a very difficult time living anywhere or becoming employed even though their particular offense was relatively minor. This is why in this particular case I do not think this person should be placed on the sex offenders registry.

The main issue of the story is still about the compelled spousal testimony. "

" first, this state allows a minor to marry with parental or gaurdian permission. This permission was granted or the marriage would not have occured. to prosecute after this occered is tatamount to entrapment and i hope the defense at has realized this. to compound this with forcing a spouse to testify against the other is repugnant especially when there are other cases that would do the same thing without pitting one spouse against another.

second you attacked my values. I did not do the job for the money. i did it at great personnal expense including memories i wish i could forget, i missed many of my sons games and other things, was away from home more that i would have liked. I have a clean record as i could not enforce the law on others if i broke them myself. I had to undergo an extensive background investigation with annual updates and would not have passed them if i had ever done wrong that includes ilicit drugs (one of the poly questions). i enforced all the laws on the books and did not pick and choose. i used discretion when i could as no 2 incidends are the same. i also maintained compassion for everyone. as a patrol officer and later as a supervisor i maintained my values and beliefs. i do not speed, i use turn signals and do not talk inccesently on a cell phone while driving. i also have a degree and was in the process of becomming a profiler when i became ill and had to retire or i would have been in law enforcement untill death or mandentory retirement. i would still do it all again without a second thought and it was not for the almighty buck it was for a belief and and idea i could make a difference. by the way i hate doughnuts and prefer tea to coffee.

third. when it was required to do a case and charge someone i relied on the prosecutor to use his/her discretion. when on the stand i told the truth when the defense ask my opinion i gave it with the same truth.

fourth, so you live in natrona county a county where the county government can not follow certain statutes/federal mandates, acts and laws or enforce their own code of ethics. if you have such high values why are you not doing your part to clean that mess up. since you do not you are like most others getting upset over your pet peeves and letting the rest go as it would be hard to do the rest. besides if your values are so much better than mine why would you worry about a family member being taken advantage of. is it perhaps because you doubt your values, the ability of said family member to absorb said values and parenting skills in your endevor for the almighty buck. "

" At that rate (God help you if your kid comes rushing into your room just after your bath and see you naked)the law is to far in the citizens live as it is.We have no rights to expect any privacy in anything we as people are at the mercy of this police state.If you accidentally are going two or four miles over a speed limit you can expect a ticket in the mail.If you say something about how tired you are of them in your life on the internet you will probity have the tricks following you on every time you are on the internet,So say something they want to hear or you'll be a combat insurgent and a for front for the fall of the United States and democracy.
As much as I personally feel that if that child was mine the man would pray to be in jail.I can't see a state going above the law to get a ground to send a message that they can and will do as they please.
Like I said if that was my Daughter he wouldn't be fearful of the law,need I say more!! "

" Great response Retired Cop. Thank you for having a he..ll of a lot on intelligence and using it both in your law enforcement career and at present. You are an excellent example of the type of person we need working in that field. I am sorry to learn that your career was cut short because of health concerns.

Again thank you for your thoughts and I hope others still working in law enforcement read your comments and gain some valuable insight from you. There are still some police out there that share your same sense of worthwhile values and balance, I hope the newer, younger ones will learn something from this. "

" 25 year old with a 15 year old.. is not a true consential relationship. 15 year olds do not have the capacity to see down the road and look at the big picture. This is not a generalized statement, this is a developmental statement. There are always exceptions to the rules, but I doubt this young lady had a "planned" pregnancy at 15, thus... she couldn't see having unprotected sex would lead to a baby. Does this man deserve imprisonment... that cannot be decided here. That needs to be decided with all the facts in the case. Just because they are married... does not mean he is a good husband or Dad.. I have not seen any evidence of that. Many young girls are married, because of intimidation by the partner ( husband) or her parents. I have to wonder... where were her parents.. why did they allow her to see a 25 year old... if they did not know about it... why? Our society does not hold parents accountable.... that is something that should change.

I agree with the prosecutors... more needs to be seen and proven in this case. This does not happen to all minor/adult relationships... I find it interesting that the prosecutor has taken it this far. Many do not. I have to believe there is more to sthis story.. that is probably why they want her testimony. Otherwise... they could convict on statute law alone... but apparently there is more to be said.

Read between the lines... Hal...and quit giving legal advice without a license. "

" thanks fot your kind words hal.


untill this becomes the united states of hmmmm with a new hmmmm constitution hal and everyone else still have freedom to voice their respective opinions and it is not practice of the legal profession without a license. "

" Don't let your ego get to inflated "retired cop"- Hal is a snake oil salesman.

Retired Cop- how old were you when you got into law enforcement? Where did you get your training? How did you gain experience?

Anyone that follows the blogs should be able to recall the rant, and I mean RANT of Hal and his opposition to Casper putting in a training facility. To para-phrase it was along the lines of Casper hiring 10 new snot nosed, diaper wearing, tv wanabe, gun weilding people that would shoot first and ask questions later.

Look it up Retired Cop- Hal is no friend of yours I guarantee. He is a hypocrite with a capital H! "

" Badge or no badge does not justify a 25 year old having an adult relationship with a 15 year old. Just because you were a dedicated law enforcement officer does not mean you have the expertise to determine if a 15 year old is mature enough to have an adult relationship. That is what the law is intended to protect. I as a mother, want this protection for my daughter. I want her to be protected from well meaning adults... who think they know she is mature enough to have an adult relationship, even though child development EXPERTS will tell you... she is not. There is an identical case of this in Nebraska. 13 year old, married 23 year old after she became pregnant... married in a different state... as Nebraska does not recognize marriages under the age of 14... Nebraska AG's office, prosecuted the 23 year old.. he spent time in jail... the reason... plain and simple.. it is against the law for an adult to have sexual relations with a minor. So... Officer... how is it that one law can be overlooked... just because some don't agree with it? But other laws... have to be upheld...? Sounds like the old double standard to me... Is this the type of system I want to rely on to protect my child... or do I want the one that is there for everyone, regardless... that says.. if you do this... this will happen... As a mother... I want anyone that desires my 15 year old daughter to WAIT until she is an adult and has the maturity to make the decision herself at that time. If they do not respect me as a parent, and my daughter as an adolescent... then I can count on the legal system to do what it is there for. "

" apples and oranges mom this state allowed the marriage and the parents had to sign and i addressed that in the first para and first para only,

the rest of my post was a different subject to a specific person as one who has reading comprehension capabilities can understand. so show exactly what double standard i applied or pester someone else. you being a mom carries no more weight than me being a dad and you come off as a petty snipe putting words in my mouth "

" one other thing mom a 12 year old can be charged, tried and convicted as an adult sentenced to life so i guess in this case the 12 year old convicted child is more of an adult. where is your outrage over this since a 15 year old is not capable of making serious decisions. i believe it is not i with the double standard. "

" Thanks retired cop for a very ambiguous, distorted comparison.

I will rest easy knowing you are retired and do not have a license to practice law. "

" you have the nerve to assert another is distorted in their view. the last sentence of your first post told me everything i needed to know. and i am glad you do not have a licence to practice law. thanks for avoiding the issue i brought up i guess it is ok to consider the younger one (usually male) and adult. perhaps that is why the supreme court of this land put a stop to convicting minors to the death penalty. i will rest easy knowing you are not a law maker a prosecutor or a judge. after all you as you state have to rely on the laws to protect what you should be doing on a daily basis like instilling values. it is aparent you do not as you have to rely on the law. the only thing you want to do is pick a fight and can not debate so go pester another "

" What is to be gained by prosecuting this case? I would ask what would be lost by not prosecuting it. It isn't about just this case. It is about protecting all children against all adult predators. This individual violated the rights of a child and nothing he does after the fact changes that fact. Do we as a society believe there is a difference between adults and children? Of course we do. We don't leave it up to children to "decide" to smoke, drink, enter into contracts, join the military, etc., and one girl cannot "decide" what is legal and what is not. "