Posted on 11/16/2007 1:50:10 PM PST by BradtotheBone
GALVESTON — After 8 1/2 hours of deliberation over two days, jurors today said they were hopelessly deadlocked in the trial of well-known bird watcher Jim Stevenson on animal cruelty charges for the killing of a feral cat.
Galveston County District Judge Frank Carmona declared a mistrial after the four men and eight women on the jury sent out a note saying they could not change their votes without violating their consciences.
Eight jurors voted to convict and four held out for acquittal in an at times heated atmosphere, according to juror Donald Cook, 42, a network administrator from League City.
Stevenson, 54, the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society, said the divide among jurors was similar to the divide between cat and bird fanciers on feral cats who prey on birds.
"I think it reflects the attitude of America on the cat issue," he said."People need to come together and work out a solution."
Stevens said he killed the cat in order to protect endangered birds.
Galveston County Assistant District Attorney Paige Santell said the decision on whether to retry Stevenson would be made by District Attorney Kurt Sistrunk.
"Sometimes you have to try tough cases," Santell said. "I'm proud this case sparked a change in the law," referring to a revised state animal cruelty law protecting feral cats and stray dogs that took effect Sept. 1.
Stevenson's attorney, Tad Nelson, said his client should never have been charged under the felony law, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The proper charge would have been a misdemeanor, such as discharge of a firearm or disorderly conduct, Nelson said.
"Jim Stevenson has never wanted to kill or harm cats," Nelson said.
Stevens is accused of using a .22-caliber scoped rifle and a hollow-point bullet to kill a cat cared for by toll-booth employee John Newland on Nov. 8, 2006.
The prosecution tried Stevenson under the old animal cruelty law in effect at the time of the shooting, which did not protect feral cats.
To convict Stevenson, Santell had to show that the cat had legally become Newland's property by virtue of his giving care and food. The prosecution also had to show that Stevenson knew, or should have known that Newland was caring for the cat.
Cook said the strong disagreement among jurors emerged soon after the jury convened late Thursday morning.
"We got very emotional at times," Cook said. "At times it got very heated."
Jurors divided over whether the cat was protected under the law, Cook said.
He said the jurors who wanted to acquit Stevenson were worried that the sentence would be too severe for the crime. "They were worried about are they going to ruin this guy's life," he said.
During two days of testimony, the prosecution painted Stevens as unconcerned about the cat's suffering or whether it was cared for by Newland.
The defense portrayed Stevenson as an animal lover, the victim of overzealous prosecutors, and unaware that Newland was caring for the cat.
Evidence showed that Newland placed bedding, toys dangling from string and trays of food under the San Luis Pass Bridge for numerous stray cats, including the cat slain by Stevenson.
The prosecution argued that Stevenson should have known that Newland was caring for the cats. Nelson argued that the food could not be seen from where Stevenson fired the shot.
The bullet severed the cat's spine, according to testimony, and the cat died while being transported for veterinary care by a police officer, who testified that the cat appeared to be suffering.
Newland heard the shot and called police, then chased Stevenson's white van with Galveston Ornithological Society emblazoned its side. Newland's vehicle slammed into the rear of Stevenson's van at one point, the officer said.
The rifle and seven hollow-point bullets were confiscated from Stevenson's van.
Feral people?
Will ferrell?
colin Farrel?
Those two statements do not show consistency on the part of the prosecution, in my opinion.
Some 25 odd years ago in rural SoCal, on a dawning Sunday morning, I was awakened by my neighbor beating on my door and yelling for me get a gun. Three large, feral dogs had broken into his rabbit shed, and had broken open some of the cages, and killed several rabbits.
I shot all three, while hearing many more shoots from around the area.
When all was said and done, a total of 15 dogs had been killed, from a pack that had come out of the river bed, then split into smaller groups attacking anything they could find.
This had two salutary effects:
A) My neighbor changed his mind about guns, and became an active shooter;
B) It prodded law enforcement, animal control, and Fish & Game to undertake a concerted joint aerial & ground attack on the packs of both feral dogs and coyotes that were running in the area.
While I'll shoot ferals when necessary, I'd really rather shoot the SOB who dumped them.
I think there’s a difference between you shooting strays on your property, a LEO just doing his job encountering a protective dog and a Dirty Harry wannabe going into a park and shooting what he thinks are evildoers.
You are on your property, shooting known strays protecting your livestock. The LEO is a shame but still an unfortunate accident. The Dirty Harry wannabe is a psycho who thinks he’s above the law.
There were options other than breaking the law available to this guy. He didn’t have to start shooting. Did he voice his concerns to the organization which ran the park? Did he explore a lawsuit to force the state to do something about it? No, he got the hankerin’ for killin’ and went off on his own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.