 |
| Laura Young, when Miss Calif. Ranger |
Late winter & early
spring have been typically busy with this-n-that (college tennis umpiring,
fire-season and garden prep, SiteWatch/site steward activities, and some yoga).
Had a few opportunities to push/shovel snow from the driveway (80-yards long)
and patio; want to keep the walkway to the hot tub clear. Last week I had a new
time wrinkle: jury duty. As a retired Ranger/Special Agent (Law Enforcement
Officer) I figured I’d never be selected, at least for a criminal trial. I’d
previously shown up for panel selections (civil case) and been excused. This
time I was selected to hear a lawsuit, and the trial ended last Friday evening.
I know many of us have heard that anyone can get “not selected” and we end up
with “only idiots” on our juries. I heard exactly that during the recent
process, but I believe it is part of our “civic duty.” Those “getting out” of
jury duty, and complaining about the judicial system, should re-evaluate their
decision: juries are a panel of judges. The system can sure use thoughtful and
informed jurors. Anyway, it got me for a few days.
 |
| Hooves & Dust series |
Overall,
I enjoyed the experience (unlike a letter to the editor in yesterday’s SF New Mexican (SFNM), about his
previous panel experience: likened it to “involuntary servitude”). The case revolved around two horses, their
care & treatment. The allegations were published by the SFNM when the case was filed in 2012 (I
found a link post-trial, as pre-trial we were instructed to do no research or
field trips). Here is the link: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/suit-alleges-lamy-stable-caused-horse-s-death/article_d8502aad-4377-5ffe-ba04-d12327d0f769.html
 |
| Hooves & Dust series |
Like many National Park
Rangers I have a long bond with our equine amigos. In the jury selection
process the panel pool of 99 prospective jurors were asked by show of hands:
how many of you, or your families, owned a horse? Being a good New Mexico
cross-section about half raised our hands (and I was mentally transported back
to riding our Morgan mare on Griffith Park bridal trails whenever I was home on
leave from the Navy, or during breaks in college). When we were asked: how many
of you boarded your horse? Only 3 or 4 of us raised our hands (and I was again
remembering another time & place, at a residence/stall in the Pickwick area
of Burbank, CA).
 |
| Justin - Mineral King trip |
The
story of National Park Rangers, and many parks in this country, go hand-in-hand
with horses; I also had memories of our family horse-pack trip into the
backcountry of Mineral King when Justin was 4. This trial seemed like a natural
fit for this Ol’ Ranger, considering some of the places I’d been stationed, or
worked on assignments, and the horseshoeing experiences and tools I possessed.
Even one of my former investigative partners, Tony Bonanno, had received some
acclaim for his photo series: Hooves & Dust – so, seemed like a good fit to
me. http://bonannophoto.com/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx
 |
| Tony Bonanno & Friend: All Hooves & Dust series photos are courtesy of TB. |
 |
| Hooves & Dust series |
The trial (or trail) began with the judge
setting the tone and ground-rules (he was very fair, impartial & patient
throughout, as he needed to be); the attorneys made their opening statements,
giving their perspectives on what happened back in 2009, and what would be
presented. Then the attorney presented the plaintiff’s case: there were a series
of witnesses, including the plaintiff, that testified. Some were character
witnesses and others were experts in fields like equestrian surgery. Most were
very credible (more about that in a moment).
 |
| Hooves & Dust series |
The
plaintiff is permanently disabled with chemical and electrical sensitivities
that precluded her from appearing in court for the proceedings. Due to these,
she testified via telephone. She had two horses boarded at a ranch from 2007 to
July 2009: one a 36-year old gelding (Joe) and the other a younger Rocky
Mountain mare (Nena). Her case was basically that she loved her horses “like
children”, had trained them to be therapy animals, they were non-allergenic,
and she hoped to clone the gelding. However, while she was on a trip to Colorado
one Sunday morning the defendants euthanized Joe without her permission,
depriving her of the ability to treat him with her Christian Scientist methods;
and the defendants mentally traumatized and mistreated Nena (injuring her), and
then withheld proper food & water from her. The plaintiff removed Nena from
the ranch the middle of that week. After filing the suit 3-year & 2-months
later, one of the defendants visited Nena’s stable potentially spooking and
injuring her.
 |
| a swayback horse |
The defendant’s attorney
painted a much different picture through a series of witnesses: Joe was a much beloved
“very old, swayback” horse (36) with “senior privileges” (allowed to roam the
ranch’s stable area), had severe degenerative arthritis diagnosed & documented
in 1991 (the farrier had been unable to lift Joe’s hoof normally for years),
the ranch/stable manager & veterinarian had left multiple phone messages
for the plaintiff on the day they found Joe barely able to move and in pain
(the amount of pain & immobility made it an emergency); the “standard of care” for New Mexico was
met and the treatment was “reasonable & customary” for the conditions;
 |
| an arthritic knee |
The
plaintiff never returned any of the defendant’s calls/voice-messages. Witnesses
stated Nena was fine during the timeframe in question, and there was veterinarian
clinic documentation showing Nena was uninjured one-year after the incident. There
was video footage of the visit to Nena, and she appeared fine; there was blood
test results indicating that Nena had been exposed to Equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM), which could explain changed behaviors and
leading to injuries. In addition, there was testimony to there being no such
thing as a non-allergenic horse. All boarders signed a standard agreement
delegating emergency medical authorizations, and cloning is a very expensive
process for horses (up to $1.5M for positive result).
I can’t speak specifically
for my fellow jurors; our deliberations were confidential. Generally, we found
the witnesses as credible (except the plaintiff). During closing summations the
defense attorney described the plaintiff as disabled, which we ALL have
sympathy for, but she uses hers “as a sword.” From her testimony, and that of
her medical doctor (a chemical sensitivities advocate), it appears to be the
case.
It
was interesting to note that in twelve appointments with her doctor
(“advocate”) between 2009-2012 she didn’t mention the loss of Joe or the injury
to Nena, but about the previous loss of her dog. Then in 2012, after she lost a
civil suit against Terminex, her next 33 appointments bemoaned her apparently
delayed/re-found grief for Joe. She was able to articulate her needs (a new
home with 75’ lap pool and therapy room) and for her horses (life-long
chiropractic, aroma therapy and stretching exercises/yoga).
 |
| Hooves & Dust series |
The jury seriously
deliberated the information we had been provided (as instructed), shared our
lighter interpretations as well, and then fairly quickly & unanimously made
our decision, which I was entrusted to sign & deliver: we found in favor of
the defendants.
HAPPY TRAILS (and justice) to ALL...
