California dog mauling conviction overturned

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Thik Nongyow, Jun 17, 2002.

  1. Thik Nongyow

    Thik Nongyow Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Cam S

    Cam S Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ugh, that is pathetic. Animal owners like that REALLY piss me off [​IMG]
     
  3. KyleS

    KyleS Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    1,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree I followed this case because of how traumatic it was and can say this makes me sick. You can have a pitbull or rot and the owners make all the difference in the world. If they are loved and treated well they are loving dogs but when they are taught to fight or abused then they revert back to centuries of inbred thought. [​IMG]
    Maybe the families will take it to the next level and try and get it overturned back?
    KyleS
     
  4. felix_suwarno

    felix_suwarno Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    0
    what made it overturned? what was the reason?
     
  5. Chris Derby

    Chris Derby Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was just the murder convivtion that was overturned. The husband was sentenced to 4 years today and the wife's sentence hasn't been determined. They haven't decided if they're going to re-try her on the murder, but she could still be sentenced to a maximum of 4 years for charges she's already convicted on.
     
  6. Mary M S

    Mary M S Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,544
    Likes Received:
    0
    The judge let the conviction on manslaughter stand. Overturned 2nd degree murder on the female defendant only, (the male was not up on that charge).

    The judge basically said he overturned the 2nd degree convection on a point of law not proven by the state. He did not believe (the exact criteria for conviction) that the female defendant "KNEW" when she walked out into the hall, that her actions would result in the death of human being and that the prosecutions burden of proving that she 'knew' this had not been met.
    The judge stated, the ONLY time he believed her personal testimony during the trial was when she became enraged and pounded the podium saying, "I did not know this dog was capable of that", (or words to that effect).
    The judge many times referred to what he considered the despicable and callous attitude and conduct of both defendants both during and before trial. His comments seemed to indicate that of the two defendants he thought the male (Out of town on that day) was the more arrogant of the two and had greater knowledge that the female defendant was not physically capable of controlling the dogs if a incident occurred and therefore had more culpability in the death. To my ears the judges statements seemed to almost be inviting prosecution to consider new charges (if that is possible) for a subsequent 2nd degree charge on the husband over consideration of re-trying the wife on that charge.
     
  7. Jefferson

    Jefferson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    20
    Not that I had any more faith in the judicial system before reading this, but....the judge did WHAT?[​IMG]
     

Share This Page