Civil Trial

Committee for the Opposition of Retention of District Judge Terry Rogers

This idyllic little community that is praised frequently, unconditionally, and without reservation on national television by Gerry Spence is about to bust wide open. My bet is that it will be skillfully contained unless someone looks into it, exposes it, and writes about it.

• In the civil action against David R. Yearly for the wrongful death of Conley Warren Lane, which was concluded on the eighteenth day of April 1996 in the Ninth District Court at Jackson Wyoming, the following circumstances prevailed, unfairly, against the plaintiffs and should be considered as the basis for an appeal of the issues decided therein:

• This trial was over before it started and Judge Terry Rogers was biased against the plaintiffs prior to Jim and Jeri Lane stepping foot in Judge Terry Rogers's courtroom.

• Judge Rogers had been prejudiced regarding the motives and irrationality of the plaintiffs in bringing this matter before the courts, which is evident both before and after the trial. In his own words:

• In a pretrial conference with Jim and Jeri Lane, Mr. Wolfe admonished them to be careful not to display any signs of disappointment, disbelief, displeasure, or anger in the courtroom as the trial progressed. Mr. Wolfe informed the Lanes that, by Judge Rogers’ own statement to both attorneys on Monday morning, April l5th, he had been advised that the Lanes were a bitter couple and were in Jackson to make trouble. Since Mr. Wolfe did not have any such interaction with Judge Rogers, it appears that someone had briefed the Judge about the case, characterized the Lane's in a negative way and, therefore, set up a bias with the Judge prior to his even meeting the plaintiffs.

• In his closing arguments in open court, Judge Rogers expressed his admiration for the restraint and mannerly behavior of the Lanes and admitted to everyone present that he had been warned prior to the beginning of the trial that they would not conduct themselves in the praiseworthy manner actually demonstrated by the Lanes on a daily basis before the court. Again, it was clear (from his own remarks) that Judge Rogers had an obvious, preconceived set of interpersonal expectancies regarding the Lanes, their motivation in the case, their emotional predisposition toward the proceedings, and their goals regarding the suit. It is clear that inappropriate attempts were made to influence the outcome of this action long before the litigants were even in place.

• Failure to request a different setting for this trial where everyone in the community knew about the accident, knew the defendant and his family, the officers of the court, key witnesses, elected officials, and police. It is also further evidence to the fact that the plaintiffs were not adequately or responsively represented in this matter.

• WYOMING LAW: Transfer of trial and change of judge.  Precondition the jurors, Not in Jackson Hole!!!!!!

• There were admissions by several jurors that they were on a first name basis with defense counsel, knew him as a judge and magistrate in Jackson, and had even been involved with him in legal matters. Further, some individuals admitted Mr. Bommer was a customer of their businesses. During their interactions there was much social banter, joking, and clear demonstration of inappropriately close relationships between Mr. Bommer and potential jurors. Counsel for the plaintiffs did not question these relationships, cite them, object to them, or even acknowledge them in court. Neither did Judge Terry Rogers. This courtroom was so biased the Lanes never had a chance.

• Very few jurors or members of the panel who participated in voire dire were able to say that they did not know, had not met or did not do business with, or did not know socially the defendant or his family. One woman, who subsequently became foreperson of the jury, cited her occupation as bartender. Further, this same juror admitted to a social acquaintanceship at the lake..." with Wendi Yearsley (Phelps), the defendant’s ex-wife and a witness who had been involved and injured in the accident. Thus, someone who clearly should have been dismissed by the court was allowed not only to be seated on the jury, but also to assert her bias as someone who is in the business of assisting people to consume alcohol and to assert a bias in favor of the defendant and his family through a working social acquaintance with him or her. Significantly, this patently obvious conflict drew no objection either from plaintiffs counsel.

• Any number of persons, during voire dire in the civil trial, admitted knowing John Daily either by reputation, personally, socially, or through his business or police work. One witness contaminated the remainder of the jurors during voire dire by offering unrestrained testimony about her perception of his expertise, his reliability, his competence, his scholarly achievements, and his unquestioned credibility. Every seated juror, as well as the remainder of the panel, was biased regarding Daily's credibility as an expert witness before the trial even began. So many potential jurors raised their hands when Mr. Bommer asked if anyone knew him that it drew a joke from Mr. Bommer and laughter from the entire jury panel, legal team for the defense, and defense family and witnesses seated in the courtroom. Since the outcome of this trial pivoted on Sergeant Daily's testimony, it was proportionately biased with no objections from Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Bommer, or Judge Rogers.  People in Jackson Hole believe the death of two young men to be funny? Is this a joke?

• Responding to defense counsel's motion to dismiss the matter following completion of plaintiffs' case, Judge Rogers made the following (paraphrased) remarks in defense of his denial: " I have seen evidence that Mr. Yearsley was speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, and driving too fast for prevailing road conditions. On the other hand, I have seen nothing at this point to indicate that Sutherland was solely responsible for the collision."

• Coupled with Judge Rogers' closing remarks, following delivery of the verdict to the effect that he was "...sure that this matter would be appealed and heard in a higher court... (Paraphrased)," his rationale for denying the motion to dismiss (above) clearly reinforces his own position that there was sufficient evidence to hear the case out.

• During voire dire, Mr. Bommer remembered a juror from his court room where she had had some legal matters with a dog and mentioned this to her. This juror should have been excluded. Wyoming state law Rule 47. Trial jurors.

• The court shall not permit counsel or a pro se party to attempt to precondition prospective jurors to a particular result, comment on the personal lives and families of the parties or their attorneys, or question jurors concerning the pleadings, the law, the meaning of words, or the comfort of jurors. Mr. Bommer preconditions this juror with his comments.  The court, Judge Terry Rogers, allowed this. This violates Wyoming State Law.  Mr. Bommer is a member of American Board of Trial Advocates: representing the state of Wyoming. How many of the "Code of Professionalism" codes did you break in this case alone? How many of the "PRINCIPLES OF CIVILITY, INTEGRITY AND PROFESSIONALISM" rules did you violate?

• David Yearly’s current wife came directly up to Jim Lane’s council, Richard Wolf, when the verdict was read, and thanked him!

• Richard Wolf wasn’t prepared, and inadequate representation for the plaintiffs.  One only need to read the “reasons for appeal” to determine this.

Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad.

Henry A. Kissinger