The cases against eight Alaska Native hunters accused of wanton waste will end with no jail time, no lost hunting privileges, and no criminal convictions.

Criminal cases were brought against the Point Hope residents following an investigation into dozens of dead caribou left behind after a July 2008 hunt, in what Alaska State Troopers characterized as the "worst case of blatant waste" they had ever seen.

The state fought hard to keep a jury trial out of Point Hope and even nearby Kotzebue, arguing that the jury pools would be tainted by locals sympathetic to the plights of the accused. Early on, Point Hope city and tribal leaders, and later the North Slope Borough, would all call the charges a direct attack on the very core of Alaska Native culture -- the subsistence way of life. Over objections from the state, defense attorneys successfully argued the men had a right to a trial in their home community, and a judge ordered the cases to be heard in Point Hope.

With two weeks to go before the start of trial, prosecutors switched tactics, dropping all misdemeanor charges and instead charging the men with civil violations of the state's hunting regulations, eliminating the need for a jury. After a high profile series of twists and turns -- the troopers sent in via helicopter to document carcass-laden crime scenes, a cable television producer along for the ride to capture their efforts for reality TV, and cries that the aggressive hunt for wrongdoers was an attack on villagers' civil right to gather food -- the cases will conclude with what essentially amounts to a traffic ticket.

"What started out headed for a crashing crescendo looks like it will end with a whimper," said Jon Buchholdt, a defense attorney for one of the three men likely to stand trial. The other defendants have either taken, or are about to take, plea deals, and one case was thrown out. The new charges for the remaining defendants mirror the charges offered in the plea deals.

Buchholdt's client, Aqquilluk Hank, openly admits he killed and left two caribou on the tundra. But he doesn't believe he did anything wrong. Hank has argued all along that one animal was diseased and unfit to bring back, and that the other, already shot by someone else and near dead when Hank encountered it, was killed to take it out of its misery. Shot up and mangy, the only salvageable piece of that animal, Hank claims, was its tongue.

If the sentiments of The Native Village of Point Hope and the North Slope Borough are any reflection of the mindset of potential jurors in Point Hope, jury nullification -- whereby a jury can acquit even a guilty defendant in the face of a law or application of law it feels is unjust -- would seem to have been a real risk for the state.

The way the cases are currently charged -- as violations instead of misdemeanors -- intent is irrelevant. Under the strict liability rule, a defendant either did what he's accused of, or didn't. It's that's simple, like running a red light, Buchholdt explained.

While a jury acquittal would have been a great outcome for his client, Bucholdt views the non-jury, bench trial on lesser charges as good news.

"Walking into a jury trial is like walking into a casino. You don't know what's going to happen, even if it's a Point Hope jury," he said.

This way, there's no chance Hank or the other defendants might lose their hunting rights even if they lose their cases, and Buchholdt is optimistic of Hank's chances with the judge.