Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsTuesday, June 24, 2008 1:38 PM CDT
Comments Comments (2) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Defense loses motion in dog groomer case
By Greg Cima
gcima@pantagraph.com
Advertisement

BLOOMINGTON -- A dog groomer’s defense attorney lost an attempt Monday to keep prosecutors from mentioning in opening statements tests on meat the groomer is accused of using to poison a competitor’s dogs.

Defense attorney Jason Cannell also indicated he may contest the admission of those laboratory tests and tests of one dog’s vomit as evidence during a trial next month. He argued Monday in McLean County Circuit Court that there are faults in the chain of custody, or the tracking of evidence to make sure it wasn’t altered or tampered with.

Cannell is representing Denise Read, who owns Deenie’s Bed and Biscuit, 1811 Morrissey Drive. She is accused of throwing raw meat laced with antifreeze into a yard at Canine Design, 1605 Bunn St.

She is charged with cruelty to animals, intimidation and criminal damage to property.

Cannell argued the meat and vomit were not inventoried, sealed in a way that prevented someone from accessing them or sealed in a secured place. He particularly noted Canine Design owner Tim Bowling or one of his employees had brought the meat to a veterinarian, and there were “problems with Bowling handling it in the first place.”

Assistant State’s Attorney Kevin Sanborn argued the opening statements aren’t evidence, and they include statements in good faith of what attorneys intend to prove at trial. He said it was improbable someone tampered with the evidence, and it was up to Cannell to prove it was plausible someone did.

“We don’t have anything showing that the vomit or the hamburger was ever tampered with,” Sanborn said.

Judge Kevin Fitzgerald said there wasn’t a need for a formal inventory of the two pieces of evidence, and they had been sealed in a relatively secure place. He said there wasn’t anything showing it was likely the evidence had been tampered with, substituted or altered, and he and Cannell disagreed over whether the defense attorney needed to show that likelihood.

Read is scheduled to go to trial July 21.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 2 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Ummmm wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:35 PM:

" My question is why are they going with the fact that the other person did the correct thing? I think the judge doesn't want to have any of that in his court room and may have a weak stomach. "

Zeva wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:22 AM:

" I'm with her attorney on this one. If someone handled the meat other than authorities whose to say someone didn't tamper with it?? "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy