Homeless Man Given Traffic Ticket for Whizzing in the Alley

Marlinton's Most Famous Bridge Dweller Is in trouble again.  Ferrell Kelly spent three years in jail awaiting a trial for a crime that he was ultimately acquited.

Ferrel cost the county $43,800 for his sojourn in TVRJ. 

Ferrel doesn't own a car and has never had a driver's license so how can he get a violation for a traffic charge.

An attempt to declare him incompetent failed when a second doctor said that there was nothing wrong with him.

Judge Dent dismissed the case but not before ruling that three years is not too long to hold a person for trial.  She ruled that he could again be charged with the same crime in the future.

While he was in jail, someone ransacked his home,  took his gas tank, and cut his power off effectively rendering him homeless.

Even the local prosecutor declare that he was homeless.

Judge Richardson ordered him released from jail to await another trial.  In doing so he took an odd action.  He ordered home confinement for a man who had no home effectively ordering him to live in a house with not heat nor electricity.  Naturally,  Ferrel moved to his current home under the bridge in Marlinton.  The town recently hauled away three truckloads of his belongings.

Friends took him to the "quarter store"  where the Methodist folks resupplied his meager non closet with six dollars worth of clothes.

Another friend takes him to DQ each morning for biscuits and gravy.  At DQ his tray always "seems" to have "extra" gravy on it.  They allow him a bottomless large tea cup which he sips on all day.  (Thanks too the girls at DQ)

Ferrel was passing through the alley last Saturday when a state trooper, Herbie Barlow interrogated him.  He asked Ferrel if he was taking a whiz (that PC) in the alley.  Apparently,  Herbie never actually saw the whiz occurring but he wrote him a ticket for good measure.

The citation was a "traffic" ticket.  Magistrate Cynthia Broce Kelly arraigned him yesterday.  She wrote that Ferrel pled "no guilty" to the traffic violation.

Ferrel has asked for a public defender (which will run about $200 per hour for goodness knows how long)  He is entitled to a public defender because he has no income at all.  The county is already into Ferrel for nearly $50,000 (inc. the hourly cost of the three public defenders he had on the first case. (That will buy a lot of meals for our Senior Citizens.)

Cynthia placed him on a PR bond with a $250 penalty if he doesn't show up for court. (No one knows where he would get that little amount, but then that's between the magistrate and Ferrel.  (He may end up doing another $50,000 of expenses for the county.)  Perhaps the County Commission might want to take up a collection for his bail.

But back to our story:  Ferrel is back on the street.  He will soon have a public defender assigned to him.  It will likely be the lady lawyer,  Laura Spadora, who lives over the Dirt Bean.  

This should be interesting watching this young lawyer defend Ferrel.  He tends to run through lawyers like a bulldozer through a cabbage patch.  Laura knows Ferrel and actually got his case dismissed the last time.  She succeeded where two other lawyers had failed.

On the stand,  Herbie will have to answer why he asked Ferrel if he was taking a whiz.  He could only arrest Ferrel without a warrant if he saw him taking a whiz. 

Then things get ripe when Laura asks him if he actually "saw" Ferrel taking a whiz.  She likely will follow up with:  "What did you see?"

From there things go down hill to acquittal (Remember Ferrel has asked for a jury trial!)

Herbie did you actually see any whiz?  Did you actually see his whizzer?  How do you know if it wasn't merely his finger you saw instead of his whizzer?

By that time Herbie is getting flushed by this lady lawyer!  

In CA indecent exposure is when a person exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place where other people are present and could be offended. 

So Laura is going to ask Herbie if he could describe Ferrel's private parts. This is important.  Remember the judge let testimony in that Bill Clinton had a crooked whizzer.  

Again in the fine state of CA we find: 

• Genitals: Exposure must be of one’s bare genital parts.  If you exposed your underwear, this does not qualify as indecent exposure.  Also, exposure of bare, female breasts does not qualify, whether it was done for sexual gratification or for a non-sexual reason such as breastfeeding.

This is starting to get rough.  This lady lawyer gets to bear down on this matter.  To have "indecent" exposure, someone has to be "offended."  So Laura will want to ask Herbie "if or how" was he offended by Ferrel's taking a whiz in the alley.  In fact, she might even ask if Herbie has ever taken a whiz in an alley!

Now remember we are only 40 miles from Lewisburg where they have an ordinance that a man can go into a girl's bathroom, yank his whizzer out and do his thing in front of several girls and the Town of Lewisburg says that is not "indecent."  

No,  it is not indecent exposure unless it is for sexual gratification or for the purpose of offending another person.  So Herbie is going to have to answer the next question:  "Do you believe that Ferrel was trying to gratify himself or merely taking a whiz in the alley?"


Then enter the prosecutor for there share of humilation at the hands of the lady lawyer.

To prove that you are guilty of “indecent exposure,” the prosecutor has to prove the following facts or elements1:

• The defendant willfully exposed his/her genitals in the presence of another person or persons who might be offended or annoyed by the defendant’s actions2; AND

• Willful exposure: Exposure has to be willful or intentional.  It cannot be accidental.

• Genitals: Exposure must be of one’s bare genital parts.  If you exposed your underwear, this does not qualify as indecent exposure.  Also, exposure of bare, female breasts does not qualify, whether it was done for sexual gratification or for a non-sexual reason such as breastfeeding.

• In the presence of someone who might be annoyed or offended: exposure must occur in the presence of at least one other person who may be annoyed or offended by the exposure.  Exposing yourself even in a public place when no one is around likely does not constitute indecent exposure.

• When the defendant exposed himself/herself, he/she acted lewdly by intending to direct public attention to his/her genitals for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying himself/herself or another person, or sexually offending another person3; AND

Now this ain't gonna be easy for Gene Simmons and/or Keith McMillion.   Herbie admits that Ferrel was in the alley by the funeral home,  not main street or even 4th avenue.  It wasn't as if he were whizzing on Dorie's picture window.  He was behind the funeral home where the monuments are.

• You did expose your genitals but in a secluded area where no one was around to be offended by your act
• Your intent was neither to gratify yourself nor to offend anyone.

That's going to be rough.  Who was Ferrel trying to offend?  Was Herbie just passing by or was he stalking Ferrel?  Did Ferrel know that Herbie was watching him take a whiz? (Don't forget that Ferrel is pleading not guilty!  That means he doesn't even admit that he was taking a whiz!  Gene or Keith have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ferrel was indeed "taking a whiz."  It is doubtful that Herbie ever saw Ferrel doing anything except facing a wall.

They should charge tickets to this trial.  

Here's the proof of our statements:

The above is not intended to be offensive.  It's sole purpose is to illustrate that not everyone in this county is playing with a full deck of cards and that Ferrel might just be the smartest one of this entire bunch of legal persons.