▁the ▁property , ▁attempted ▁to ▁cor ro bor ate ▁Pet erson ' s ▁account ▁even ▁when ▁offered ▁imm unity ▁from ▁pro sec ution ▁if ▁he ▁told ▁Anderson ▁what ▁the ▁game ▁w arden ▁believed ▁had ▁actually ▁happened . ▁The ▁next ▁day ▁Anderson ▁returned ▁to ▁the ▁property ▁and ▁conf isc ated ▁the ▁el k . ▁Pet erson ▁was ▁charged ▁with ▁un law fully ▁killing ▁a ▁game ▁animal ▁and ▁Bul lock ▁with ▁possess ing ▁an ▁un law fully ▁killed ▁game ▁animal . ▁ ▁The ▁two ▁men ' s ▁trial ▁took ▁most ▁of ▁the ▁next ▁year . ▁In ▁February ▁ 1 9 9 2 ▁the ▁county ▁Justice ▁Court ▁granted ▁their ▁motion ▁to ▁suppress ▁all ▁the ▁evidence ▁that ▁Anderson ▁and ▁Daw son ▁had ▁obtained ▁when ▁they ▁went ▁on ▁Pet erson ' s ▁property , ▁dismiss ing ▁entirely ▁the ▁case ▁against ▁Bul lock ▁in ▁the ▁process . ▁The ▁state ▁appe aled ▁to ▁District ▁Court , ▁and ▁asked ▁for ▁a ▁new ▁trial ; ▁the ▁defend ants ▁in ▁turn ▁asked ▁that ▁the ▁charges ▁be ▁dismiss ed ▁because ▁they ▁were ▁mis de mean ors ▁and ▁more ▁than ▁six ▁months ▁had ▁el apsed ▁since ▁they ▁had ▁been ▁charged . ▁After ▁that ▁motion ▁was ▁denied , ▁they ▁ple aded ▁guilty ▁and , ▁in ▁October , ▁appe aled ▁to ▁the ▁Mont ana ▁Supreme ▁Court . ▁ ▁The ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁sent ▁the ▁case ▁back ▁down ▁for ▁evident i ary ▁hear ings ▁and ▁im position ▁of ▁sentence , ▁proceed ings ▁that ▁took ▁place ▁over ▁the ▁next ▁two ▁years . ▁After ▁they ▁had ▁been ▁held , ▁the ▁just