>
News
>
Local News
DA: Bar dog video in court
By Phil Ray, pray@altoonamirror.com
POSTED: October 30, 2007
HOLLIDAYSBURG — Blair County’s district attorney attempted Monday to block defense plans by a Tyrone dog activist to tell a jury she was justified in taking a 19-year-old Shepherd mix from its owner last year because she believed the dog was being mistreated.
“It’s our judgment there is absolutely no basis for ‘justification’ in this case,” Blair County District Attorney Richard Consiglio said.
He asked Judge Elizabeth Doyle to bar Tammy Sneath Grimes of Tyrone RR 5 and her defense attorney, Phillip O. Robertson, from presenting a video of the dog chained to its dog house in the yard of its owners, Steve and Lori Arnold of East Freedom.
Doyle will decide if the Grimes defense team can submit a veterinarian’s report to the jury indicating the dog’s poor health, and the fact that the dog, Jake, was near death Sept. 11, 2006, when Grimes took him from the Arnold’s yard.
Grimes is charged with theft and receiving stolen property for taking Jake, who she renamed Doogie, and placing the dog in a foster home
Jake has since died.
Grimes, who leads a national organization called Dogs Deserve Better, insists she was in the right in allegedly rescuing the dog that she says was allowed to lay in the dirt outside the home for several days without nourishment or care.
She claims the Arnolds should have been charged with animal cruelty.
“Justification is available to anybody. To bar a constitutional right is ludicrous, your honor,” said Robertson as he argued Grimes has the right to present her defense to the jury as she sees fit.
Consiglio said Monday not all defenses are available in all trials.
He cited a murder case he tried last year in which the defendant wanted to say that he was impaired by drugs and alcohol when the killing occurred, but the court barred that argument when the facts of the case did not support it.
The same argument can be used in the Grimes case, Consiglio said, pointing out justification may be a defense in which a person acts to save himself or another person.
Grimes, in taking Jake, was not attempting to save herself, he said. And there is no other person involved the case.
A dog is not a human being, he said, noting the law considers a dog as “personal property.”
Doyle also must address whether Consiglio can present a dog breeder, who also rescues dogs.
The breeder, Charlene Pedrolie of Clearfield County, will testify that Grimes told her to steal dogs as opposed to allowing them to suffer.
Pedrolie will testify to the jury that she calls law enforcement officers when a dog needs help.
Robertson said Consiglio wants the court to declare Pedrolie an “expert witness” in rescuing dogs which, he said, she is not.
Doyle said she needs time to research the law on the increasingly complex issues involved in the case and did not make a decision Monday.
Fourteen Grimes supporters were in the courtroom watching proceedings including Cheryl McGuire of Carlisle who traveled to Hollidaysburg for the early morning hearing.
McGuire said she “can’t stand” to see dogs hurt.
“It’s our judgment there is absolutely no basis for ‘justification’ in this case,” Blair County District Attorney Richard Consiglio said.
He asked Judge Elizabeth Doyle to bar Tammy Sneath Grimes of Tyrone RR 5 and her defense attorney, Phillip O. Robertson, from presenting a video of the dog chained to its dog house in the yard of its owners, Steve and Lori Arnold of East Freedom.
Doyle will decide if the Grimes defense team can submit a veterinarian’s report to the jury indicating the dog’s poor health, and the fact that the dog, Jake, was near death Sept. 11, 2006, when Grimes took him from the Arnold’s yard.
Grimes is charged with theft and receiving stolen property for taking Jake, who she renamed Doogie, and placing the dog in a foster home
Jake has since died.
Grimes, who leads a national organization called Dogs Deserve Better, insists she was in the right in allegedly rescuing the dog that she says was allowed to lay in the dirt outside the home for several days without nourishment or care.
She claims the Arnolds should have been charged with animal cruelty.
“Justification is available to anybody. To bar a constitutional right is ludicrous, your honor,” said Robertson as he argued Grimes has the right to present her defense to the jury as she sees fit.
Consiglio said Monday not all defenses are available in all trials.
He cited a murder case he tried last year in which the defendant wanted to say that he was impaired by drugs and alcohol when the killing occurred, but the court barred that argument when the facts of the case did not support it.
The same argument can be used in the Grimes case, Consiglio said, pointing out justification may be a defense in which a person acts to save himself or another person.
Grimes, in taking Jake, was not attempting to save herself, he said. And there is no other person involved the case.
A dog is not a human being, he said, noting the law considers a dog as “personal property.”
Doyle also must address whether Consiglio can present a dog breeder, who also rescues dogs.
The breeder, Charlene Pedrolie of Clearfield County, will testify that Grimes told her to steal dogs as opposed to allowing them to suffer.
Pedrolie will testify to the jury that she calls law enforcement officers when a dog needs help.
Robertson said Consiglio wants the court to declare Pedrolie an “expert witness” in rescuing dogs which, he said, she is not.
Doyle said she needs time to research the law on the increasingly complex issues involved in the case and did not make a decision Monday.
Fourteen Grimes supporters were in the courtroom watching proceedings including Cheryl McGuire of Carlisle who traveled to Hollidaysburg for the early morning hearing.
McGuire said she “can’t stand” to see dogs hurt.
Share:
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpacesMember Comments
View Comments: | 1-25 |26-28 | Post a comment
|
pvineswinger
|
|
|---|---|
|
02-23-08 11:03 AM
|
This story has been seen by a national audience- I really hope DA Richard Consiglio and Judge Elizabeth Doyle realize what a negative image and inhumanity they are presenting of Blair County to the rest of the country.
|
|
SHIRLEYANN
|
|
|
02-15-08 2:15 PM
|
We read the article on the trial of Grimes of Dogs Deserve Better. I agree with her stand. Laws should be enforced or changed to protect animals and to stop all cruelty. We, as animal lovers, also want to see new laws to protect them and to see people in authority who can't feel compassion for any suffering animal removed from office. We will appeal to the Highest Court for help for these animals needing help by prayer to their Creator, God.
|
|
Justina
|
|
|
10-31-07 3:19 PM
|
If she loses, especially if evidence is barred, Grimes will go down in history as the woman who eventually changed the term ownership to caretakers of companion animals and alerted a Nation to the dangers of 24/7 tethering. Because of Grimes being prosecuted for saving this dog in immediate danger, this case will be used as fodder to change the laws that need changed because as they are now, the laws do not protect someone for protecting a companion animal in immediate danger when the Humane Officer & "owners" can't be reached. The irony will be on the breeders, who condemn Grimes for taking this dog & volunteered to help in her conviction, they will be the beginning of the law change they most hate to see happen. Win or Lose, Grimes will improve the life of people and their companion animals and ironically people like Elizabeth Brinkley & Pedrolie are going to help her do it! Ha! Now that is what I call Good Karma!
|
|
Justina
|
|
|
10-31-07 3:19 PM
|
If she loses, especially if evidence is barred, Grimes will go down in history as the woman who eventually changed the term ownership to caretakers of companion animals and alerted a Nation to the dangers of 24/7 tethering. Because of Grimes being prosecuted for saving this dog in immediate danger, this case will be used as fodder to change the laws that need changed because as they are now, the laws do not protect someone for protecting a companion animal in immediate danger when the Humane Officer & "owners" can't be reached. The irony will be on the breeders, who condemn Grimes for taking this dog & volunteered to help in her conviction, they will be the beginning of the law change they most hate to see happen. Win or Lose, Grimes will improve the life of people and their companion animals and ironically people like Elizabeth Brinkley & Pedrolie are going to help her do it! Ha! Now that is what I call Good Karma!
|
|
BlueEagle
|
|
|
10-31-07 2:08 PM
|
Grimes didn't take the dog because it was being mistreated.Other dogs on the property were being mistreated,Grimes left them.The dog was "LYING ON THE GROUND DYING" or "OBVIOUSLY SUFFERING TO THE POINT IT COULD NOT STAND". THIS IS NOT A CASE OF A VIGILANTE TAKING THE LAW INTO HER OWN HANDS, if something wasn't done immediately the dog would continue to suffer in immediate pain or die. The 1st action was the neighbor calling the Humane Officer for days w/o an answer, the 2nd was to knock on the door to see if the owners were available. When those actions failed the 3rd was to take the dog to the vet. Once the dog was treated & the condition was documented,police should not have expected the dog's return to the owners w/o an investigation. Grimes did everything as she should have: The Humane Officer was called 1st,tried to contact the owners, took the dog to the vet & called the police to let them know she had the dog & evidence.
|
|
BlueEagle
|
|
|
10-31-07 2:07 PM
|
Grimes didn't take the dog because it was being mistreated. Other dogs on the property were being mistreated,Grimes left them. The dog was "LYING ON THE GROUND DYING" or if it's wrong to assume dying,then it was "OBVIOUSLY SUFFERING TO THE POINT IT COULD NOT STAND". THIS IS NOT A CASE OF A VIGILANTE TAKING THE LAW INTO HER OWN HANDS, if something wasn't done immediately the dog would continue to suffer in immediate pain or die. The 1st action was the neighbor calling the Humane Officer for days w/o an answer, the 2nd was to knock on the door to see if the owners were available. When those actions failed the 3rd was to take the dog to the vet. Once the dog was treated & the condition was documented,police should not have expected the dog's return to the owners w/o an investigation. Grimes did everything as she should have: The Humane Officer was called 1st,tried to contact the owners, took the dog to the vet & called the police to let them know she had the d
|
|
BlueEagle
|
|
|
10-31-07 2:04 PM
|
Grimes did't take the dog because it was being mistreated. The other dogs on the property were being mistreated, Grimes left them. The dog was "LYING ON THE GROUND DYING" or if it's wrong to assume dying, then it was "OBVIOUSLY SUFFERING TO THE POINT IT COULD NOT STAND". THIS IS NOT A CASE OF A VIGILANTE TAKING THE LAW INTO HER OWN HANDS, if something wasn't done immediately the dog would die or continue suffering in immediate pain. The 1st action was the neighbor calling the Humane Officer for days without an answer, the 2nd was to knock on the door to see if the owners were available. When those actions failed the 3rd was to take the dog to the vet. Once the dog was treated and the condition was documented,police should not have expected the dog's return to the owners w/o an investigation. Grimes did everything as she should have: The Humane Officer was called 1st,tried to contact the owners, took the dog to the vet & called the police to let them know she
|
|
mimipjspa
|
|
|
10-31-07 1:46 PM
|
The term is red neck
|
|
mimipjspa
|
|
|
10-31-07 1:44 PM
|
I know the dog owners. I know the East Freedom Police Department. As Jeff Foxworthy would say, " You know you're a ******* if. . . ." Need I say more?
|
|
BlueEagle
|
|
|
10-31-07 9:54 AM
|
I read this article 3 times and I am curious about the link between the murder case the DA is using as his reason Grimes evidence should not be allowed. Usually when a lawyer cites another case it is a similar case. Unless there is something more that I'm missing, I don't see any similarities between a murder case where the defendant wants to testify to the use of drugs and alcohol impairing his reasoning to physical evidence taken by the defendant at the time of the alleged incident. I'm also hoping that the judge questions the DA and Police Dept as to why the owners of this dog were not charge with abuse. The other thing that bothers me is that anyone connected with the opposite side of this case is a dog breeder. It's common knowledge that most breeders are the enemies of animal rescue because shelters and rescues take money from the breeder by adopting out rescue dogs and therefore reducing sales. It sounds to me like Ms. Grimes is being railroaded.
|
|
Snyder
|
|
|
10-31-07 8:51 AM
|
Congratulations to RandyL!!!! He is blessed with the same sub-human mentality as our incompetent DA. Mr. Consiglio has blatantly sided with the owners of the dog since the beginning of this case. I wonder how these two "gentlemen" would feel if they found themselves lying in pain for days on the frozen groud at the end of a chain just waiting to die to escape the pain. Mr. Consiglio referred to Jahe as a "beloved family pet"; perhaps his attitude would change if he changed places with Jake. In my opinion, he belongs there.
|
|
Snyder
|
|
|
10-31-07 8:50 AM
|
Congratulations to RandyL!!!! He is blessed with the same sub-human mentality as our incompetent DA. Mr. Consiglio has blatantly sided with the owners of the dog since the beginning of this case. I wonder how these two "gentlemen" would feel if they found themselves lying in pain for days on the frozen groud at the end of a chain just waiting to die to escape the pain. Mr. Consiglio referred to Jahe as a "beloved family pet"; perhaps his attitude would change if he changed places with Jake. In my nopinion, he belongs there.
|
|
Justina
|
|
|
10-31-07 1:43 AM
|
From a legal standpoint only: I too think it is a cruel justice that would expect a jury to give up their time for a case that they are not allowed to clearly see both sides of. The DA is basically telling the jury: "Here is a case of theft against Tammy Grimes, now go find her guilty." The DA cited a murder case in which the defendant wanted to argue he was impaired by drugs and alcohol, but the court barred that argument when the facts of the case did not support it. I don't know this case, but I'm not sure I agree that any argument should have been barred when the DA could have just as easily proven the facts of the case didn't support it. If a case is brought in front of a jury, let the jury hear and see the evidence and come up with their own verdict. The DA should not be writing their script and editing out the parts he doesn't like.
|
|
monicas
|
|
|
10-31-07 1:25 AM
|
The news reports really haven't conveyed the situation here. Tammy did not take the dog because it was being "mistreated." She and the rest of the Dogs Deserve Better volunteers see shockingly mistreated dogs every day. This dog was in IMMINENT DANGER OF DYING. It was writhing on the ground, unable to stand for three days and suffering in the mud and rain. It wasn't just because this animal had spent years chained to the same patch of dirt and had been denied vet care, exericise, companionship and a warm bed. No, Tammy made a decision to act because time was of the essence and a living creature was going to continue suffering and would eventually die if she didn't do something. Wouldn't you do the same if you had tried repeatedly to get animal control to do something, but no one did?
|
|
legaleasey
|
|
|
10-31-07 1:19 AM
|
In a case such as this, I don't feel that it is fair to this jury to be expected in good conscience to give a verdict when the most important elements of evidence have been barred from their viewing. The video is very compelling and without it the DA is tying the jurors' hands on an honest deliberation. I know Justice is supposed to be blind...but the jury shouldn't be expected to be. Just an opinion.
|
|
HalCBad
|
|
|
10-31-07 12:07 AM
|
Trying again: Coming from Blair County as much as I hate to admit it RandyL makes a valid point. All the animal rescue organizations we have in PA, Blair County does little to nothing to fight animal cruelty. They don't care. All who live in the area know of someone who mistreats their dogs, but how many of these cases go to court? Good citizens beg for help & the police won't listen. Why waste money on a trial when the defense can't prove her case? Either admit the evidence or throw the whole case out of court.
|
|
DawnAshby
|
|
|
10-30-07 11:52 PM
|
We stand behind Tammy and are proud to call her hero.
|
|
DawnAshby
|
|
|
10-30-07 11:49 PM
|
Coming from Blair County as much as I hate to admit it RandyL makes a valid point. All the animal rescue organizations we have in PA, Blair County does little to nothing to fight animal cruelty. They don't care. All who live in the area know of someone who mistreats their dogs, but how many of these cases go to court? Good citizens beg for help & the police won't listen. Why waste money on a trial when the defense can't prove her case? Either admit the evidence or throw the whole case out of court.
|
|
PiaKan
|
|
|
10-30-07 10:39 PM
|
There is something seriously wrong with the laws in your area if they try to prevent someone's evidence of another's cruelty to this dog.A dog is just property and not a human being? That kind of mentality went out a long time ago. Very poor excuse. A dog is a living thing that can feel suffering nad pain. Don't dog also provide eyes for the blind, help for the disabled, sniff out those buried like in earthquakes or 911? Those alive or dead? Do they not go out on search and rescues? They are man's best friend.Too bad man is not their best friend. Ms. Grimes should be called a hero.Maybe those in your area need to address your feelings about how dogs aren't worth it. People who demean or devalue dogs or other living things often don't respect human life either.The people who let their dog be in the condition it was found should be prosecuted.If your laws are that inhumane then change them. The police or animal control should have done their jobs against animal cruelty! Bravo Ms. Grimes
|
|
RandyL
|
|
|
10-30-07 10:36 PM
|
When the DA wins this case I am walking my dog by Grimes and kicking it in front of her and dare her to do a thing. What is she going to do? Video tape it? No one will look at the video! The Humane Officer won't care about your calls for help. NOBODY CARES! It's just a dog! Mind your own business. The judge, jury, DA, Police, Humane, nobody cares about it! Blair County will always chain dogs, if an owner wants to avoid vet bills and let the dog die in the yard no one has any power over it if the police ignore it. The judge has better things to do than care about your rights in a dog case. Once this trial is over we will prove once and for all that animal rights people have NO RIGHTS and all court cases after this will prove in favor of the owners, whether you think they are abusive or not! Congrats to consiglio for knowing who the master is and where an animals place is, in the backyard!
|
|
Snyder
|
|
|
10-30-07 10:01 PM
|
Of course DA Consiglio wants to bar the video and the veterinarian reports that validate the inhumane conditions that this innocent dog endured, abusive and neglectful conditions that left him suffering to the point where he was near death. The honorable DA knows that if the jury is exposed to the truth about the facts in this case, he will not have the great honor of convicting Tammy Grimes for being a caring and compassionate person. I hope the people of this county take a long hard look at this case and work together to eliminate any public official who is a public disgrace to the county government. Jake's doghouse is empty now; I suggest we put a new resident (who shall remain nameless) in there now.
|
|
Furkindred
|
|
|
10-30-07 8:57 PM
|
Any documentation that Tammy garners is to the good of the dog, period. She goes where others are too afraid or busy to--local pound people, law enforcement, negligent "dog owners"-- and that is just what they are and what they consign the dogs in their care to. If they treated the dog they have the privilege to share their lives with, they would never treat a dog in any way but with love. The poor dog Tammy took from that*****of a yard was near death--near death! If the folks involved with the "proper channels" did not do their duty, who then would? No one! As someone mentioned here "That family lost something that can never be replaced and they never got to say goodbye to their pet of 18 years." The only thing that family lost WAS a piece of property, in their eyes. Not a pet. Not only did they never get to say goodbye, they never said "Hello" or "Good Morning!" or anything kind and caring. Dogs can always be obtained to neglect,
|
|
CherylMcGuire
|
|
|
10-30-07 6:09 PM
|
I was at the court yesterday (I drove 120 miles to be there) and was appalled at the decorum of the District Attorney's office. One member sat and chewed gum throughout the entire hearing, the other referred to everybody by their first name (including opposing council) and then said "for gods sake." My husband is about to finish law school and I know for a fact that none of those things are recommended behaviors. The fact this case has gone this far is an abomination. There are several people that deserved to be put in front of a judge, but none of those are any members of Dogs Deserve Better. How about the owners for animal abuse? Or the dog warden for obviosuly caring so little about the resonsibilities of his job? The only thing that gives me any solace from all of this is that one day they will all have to face up to their wrongdoings, instead of placing the blame on the one person that really did any good in all of this!
|
|
markie6
|
|
|
10-30-07 5:35 PM
|
Tammy deserves to be tried and sentenced for theft, she stole someones property and it was lost forever now. I would like to know if the animals were being uncared for, why did she only take one of the animals and not both dogs? I do understand that some animals are abused and not cared for properly, but there are proper channels to be followed and she obviously chose to ignore them. That family lost something that can never be replaced and they never got to say goodbye to their pet of 18 years. Tammy is not judge and jury and should not be allowed to gain media attention for her cause from such actions as these.
|
|
DawnAshby
|
|
|
10-30-07 2:49 PM
|
Every time I hear how far Charlene Pedrolie will go to slander Grimes out of spite or how much the DA wants to prosecute Grimes when the fact is that all over our Nation our legal systems are taking stands AGAINST animal abusers, a little part of me dies. I work with Tammy Grimes, I volunteered for DDB for years, she has always told me to make sure I document with pictures and video, always told me to get a signed surrender agreement and never once told me to steal a dog. I work closely with my Police Force and ACO and I could never believe that they would put me in the position that Tammy was subjected to by forcing her to face the decision of taking the dog to the vet or leaving it to die, of putting the dog back in the hands of the abusers who were not punished. Because of everyone else's negligence; the Humane Officer, the dog's owners, that's just what they did, they FORCED the responsibility onto Tammy Grimes and now they are letting her take the fall for it.
|