Wally the Beer Man Trial: The Breakdown

           Many of you have now seen or heard of the compliance check or police sting incident involving beloved beer vendor Wally the Beer Man last September at Target Field.  Like all of us in this hospitality industry, Wally is a server of alcohol and therefore, the same rules and laws apply to his situation as they do to our alcohol service situations.  Unlike Wally though, many of us have not been doing it for over 40 years.  Wally made a common but unfortunate mistake and that is, he served alcohol to a minor and he did so during what happened to be a compliance check.  As we know, it’s almost better that it was a compliance check given that, although it means the server gets caught on the spot, at least we are prevented from a serving a legitimate minor who will actually drink the alcohol that we serve them and then perhaps do something dangerous like drive home.  Nevertheless, Wally failed to card, and Wally failed this compliance check.  On that same September night at Target Field, he was one of eight such servers that failed the compliance checks out of about 26 that were performed.  Like the others, Wally was fired from Target Field and he was charged with a crime-a gross misdemeanor for furnishing alcohol to a minor, and he was given a court date in Hennepin County.

Now, Wally’s case gained much attention for two reasons: 1) because of his notoriety; and 2) because he actually challenged his criminal charge in court. 

             As we have discussed as servers in our alcohol liability education training classes, typically the police are not out to try to get us to fail a compliance check and there are some general rules of fairness that are followed by the police.  These rules are that they have to use a person who is actually under the age of 21, and that person must present their own real ID if asked for it by the server.  Therefore, the police cannot for example use a fake identification.  The police also could not employ a tactic such as dressing up an under-21 person to make them look as though they are older than they are to the extent that this would cause us to not card them.  On that note, we tend to teach servers to card those individuals who appear to be 35 or under.  Target Field was employing a rule that any person appearing to be 30 or under be carded on the night in question. 

           In Wally’s case, he served a beer to a person who was only 19 years old.  This was a fact during the trial that was admitted by Wally and his attorney.  Therefore, Wally was taking the legal position that he did in fact serve alcohol to a minor, but that because of tactics used by the police during the compliance check, he was entrapped by the police.  Usually when it can be shown that the police entrapped a criminal defendant, this can be a defense to the crime.  This means that if Wally and his attorney could persuade the jury of 6, four women and two men, that he was in fact entrapped by the tactics used by the police, that he would be found not guilty or acquitted of the charge against him that he furnished alcohol to a minor. 

            So how did Wally make his case that he was entrapped by the police?  Well, during the trial Wally testified that at the time he served this particular minor or police “decoy”, he was serving a group of people as is typically the case during a busy Twins game, and he verbally asked this group of individuals whether or not they were all at least 21 years of age and specifically, he testified that the decoy in question said in response that, “yes”, he was old enough.  But the prosecution also called the decoy to the witness stand and in his testimony, the decoy testified that Wally never asked this question and that therefore, he never had an opportunity to give any answer let alone a “yes” answer to that question.  Now, the question then becomes well what if he did in fact ask, and the decoy did in fact say that he was 21-does that allow Wally to then serve him without actually looking at his ID and then  be exonerated for serving a minor because the decoy lied?  It is important to note here that the police who were supervising this compliance check were also called as witnesses and one of the officers testified that they provide  direction to their decoys that they can lie if asked whether or not a compliance check is taking place, but they cannot lie if asked about their age.  It was likely that this testimony set the stage for the jury to opine that if then, the decoy did in fact lie about his age by responding “yes” to being at least 21, that entrapment had in fact taken place in Wally’s sting by the police. 

       Therefore, the proper breakdown of what exactly the jury had to deliberate during the five hours that it did following the trial is essentially the following two things:

1. Whose testimony was more credible-Wally’s or the decoy’s?  Remember that Wally testified that he asked the decoy if he was at least 21 and the decoy said yes.  But the decoy’s testimony was that he was never asked this question and simply that he asked for a beer, was not ever carded, and was subsequently served the beer; and
2. If the jury determined that Wally was more credible in his testimony in that they believed that he did in fact ask the decoy whether he was 21 and that the decoy did in fact respond yes, did this conduct on the part of the decoy/police constitute entrapment?

The jury delivered a verdict finding Wally not guilty.  In a post trial interview, one of the jurors indicated to the media that the jury did in fact believe the testimony of Wally over that of the decoy.  They thought that the decoy’s testimony seemed rehearsed while Wally’s testimony seemed more natural and thus, more truthful.  And given then that they believed that Wally had asked the decoy if he was at least 21 and given  that the jury believed that the decoy lied and responded, “yes”, the jury then determined that Wally had therefore been entrapped into serving the alcohol to this 19 year-old would be baseball fan.  Again, the testimony of the police as to their own policies prohibiting lying when it comes to questions regarding the age of the decoy most likely led to the conclusion that Wally was entrapped. 

Wally was also joined by a fellow vendor from Target Field who fought his own similar charge as a result of failing a compliance check that same night.  His trial happened simultaneously with Wally’s and with the same jury.  Interestingly enough, the same jury found the other vendor to be guilty.  But the facts of his case were different.  He asked for the ID of a separate female decoy who did in fact present her underage vertical Wisconsin ID and the vendor in that situation simply misread the ID and served her anyway.  The jury noted that he had made a mistake yes, but that he was guilty and there was no evidence presented to suggest he had been entrapped like Wally’s case.

What servers should take from this story:

Some have said that Wally got off because of who he is.  The above analysis shows that the jury had two determinations to make in its deliberations and neither of them would have been dependant upon who Wally was as a popular figure.  Some of the jury had even noted that they weren’t all that familiar with who Wally was and we should remind ourselves that the majority of the jury was women (who seem to be far outnumbered by men when it comes to attention to sports in general and certainly attention to the particular detail of who is the most widely-recognized beer vendor at a live sporting event).  Wally’s case was unique and a different jury on a different day may have handled this case differently.  Believability of the witnesses and the interpretation of the fairness of certain conduct on the part of the police were crucial aspects that separate minds could differ on.  Bottom line-keep carding when appropriate and make sure you always take the time to read a customer’s ID closely.