|
|
|
 |
Confusing South Carolina Poker Decision Appealed
MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA --
A ruling by a judge last month that poker didn't meet state gambling definitions, but players were guilty of running a house of gambling, has been appealed by the five card players. Lawyers for the five argue that definitions of what constitutes gambling in state statutes are so vague and ambiguous as to be unenforceable.
Municipal Court Judge Larry Duffy had found that poker was undeniably a game of skill, and thus not gambling by state definitions which included the need to be random or chance-based. But Duffy also held that the five defendants were using their home as a house of gaming.
Attorneys have contended that state laws are poorly worded, leaving too much space for interpretation. The seemingly mutually exclusive findings by the judge may be a strong point for that argument.
During the trial, prosecutors made such absurd points as the concept that freeing the men would be the equivalent of licensing little casinos at every house and that, by failing to conduct a criminal background check of participants, the organizers were not conducting a friendly game.
The appeal states that Duffy should have found that state laws against card gambling games are "so overbroad as to not be rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest."
Previous Poker News Articles
Post A Comment
|
 |
|
|
|
