Wednesday, March 25, 2015

“No Horsing Around”… reflections of Jury Duty- March 2015 (Aka “They shoot horses don’t they?”)

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...

No comments:

Post a Comment