|
''Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Chimento'' was a South Carolina case that ruled that while poker was a game of skill, the Dominant Factor Test is not demonstrably a legal standard in South Carolina and thus poker is still subject to the laws relegated to gambling. The case was later appealed to a higher South Carolina district court where the Judge overturned the trial court's convictions, stating that Dominant Factor Test was the appropriate legal standard and therefore participating in a private home poker game is not illegal, nor is it gambling. The Judge further declared sections of the 207-year-old statute unconstitutionally vague and therefore void. South Carolina law, specifically Section 16-19-40 ("Unlawful games and betting") of the Code of Laws, originally written in 1802, provides that "any game with cards or dice" played "at any tavern, inn, store ... or in any house used as a place of gaming" is illegal.〔South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 16, (Chapter 19 ).〕 While this is now being interpreted to mean gambling (betting is mentioned in the statute), a literal reading of the law would mean that games such as ''Sorry!'' and ''Monopoly'' are technically illegal in South Carolina.〔http://www.scribd.com/doc/20497135/SC-Circuit-Court-Order-Chimento-Et-Alv-Town-of-Mt-Pleasant-10-01-09,〕 ==Background== In April 2006, about 20 poker players were arrested when police in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, raided a weekly home poker game. The players were charged under South Carolina state statute 16-19-40 "Unlawful Games and Betting" which had been written and enacted by the South Carolina state legislature 204 years before, in 1802, during the first term of Thomas Jefferson's Presidency. All of the poker players, except Bob Chimento, Scott Richards, Michael Williamson, Jeremy Brestel, and John Taylor Willis agreed to a plea bargain and paid fines of no more than $300. The remaining five players fought the arrest and forced the prosecution to take the case to court.〔 Jeff Phillips, the attorney for the accused, said, “The particular law in South Carolina is so antiquated and so garbled that it’s virtually indecipherable. At some point, you need to look at the facts. Poker is not like any other game in the casino. Poker is predominantly a game of skill, therefore it should be treated differently.”〔 SC 16-19-40, as applied to private home card games, has been rarely and sporadically enforced in its 204-year history. This has led some to raise questions of constitutional "equal protection" issues in regards to its selective enforcement. As some have noted the forfeiture aspects of the statute, which allows law enforcement agencies to keep money confiscated, may be a motivating factor in its application. In presenting his clients' defense, Phillips brought in two expert witnesses: Mike Sexton, the commentator for the World Poker Tour, and Professor Robert Hannum. Hannum was the expert witness who participated in the Colorado case ''Colorado v. Raley'' where the defendants were found not guilty.〔 The two expert witnesses were intended to demonstrate that poker was a game of skill and thus fulfilled the requirements of the Dominant Factor Test. The key phrase the defense focused upon was "house used as a place of gaming." As both the defense and prosecutor agreed that gaming meant "gambling", the defense focused upon the notion that "this case ... turns entirely on whether poker is gambling." The defense thus based its strategy on demonstrating that poker was a game of skill and thus not gambling. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Chimento」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|