Just seeing a person facing a wall does not constitute "indecent exposure" You have to see the sex organ itself for their to be "indent exposure. In fact, one can even see a stream of water emanating from someone's pants and that does not constitute "indecent exposure." Furthermore, a lot of people have peed in an alley and not been charged with indecent exposure.
But Farrell appears to be the exception to the rule of common sense. He was arrested almost a year ago and given a traffic ticket for indecent exposure.
Farrell doesn't have a driver's license and certainly does not own a car. So how could he commit a traffic violation? This proves that Marlinton is a world of its own. There appears to be special rules for special people like Farrell.
Ironically, one of our local magistrates found "probable cause" that he had exposed himself to someone and caused an affront to someone's sensibilities.
This entire incident is an affront to the legal system-- one that doesn't follow the letter of the law and lets a person suffer distress for a year.
It reminds me that Farrel spent almost 3 years in jail for a crime he was acquitted when it came to trial.
You see Farrell has learned that whenever you are charged with a crime that you have to ask for a jury of your peers to hear you case and if you have reason to believe that the magistrate is biased you must ask for a special magistrate.
Every logger in Pocahontas County ought to be thankful for the court's support in using massive amounts of paper to make certified copies of his records. One person has spent hours hand stamping the certification of hundreds of copies.
There are at least two grateful lawyers who get paid unbelievable wages to defend Farrell.
Farrell has two more charges of "indecent exposure" coming up. That will consume more paper, more costs of service of process, and more legal fees.
Remember the same rules will apply in those trials that got the case dismissed this time. Something has to be exposed to constitute "indecent exposure."