Gallegos says he will not file felony in Bugenig horse case
by Heather Muller , 10/21/2006
Despite a letter-writing campaign initiated by a national animal welfare organization, Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said Wednesday he will not file charges against Roberta Bugenig for her alleged mistreatment of a horse in 2004.
Gallegos stated by e-mail, “The decision to not charge Ms. Bugenig in 2004 was made based on the evidence that was contained in the report and the requirements of proof imposed upon us by law. Since the evidence contained in the reports has not and cannot change, neither can our decision.
“My office remains committed to prosecuting people that have violated the law when there is sufficient evidence that they have done so and to not prosecuting them when there isn’t,” he continued. “Those are the requirements and limitations imposed upon me by the United States Constitution, California law and, I believe, common decency.”
Shannon Miranda, owner and operator of Miranda’s Animal Rescue in Fortuna, and one of several volunteers who rescued 13 surviving dogs Aug. 11, was quick to respond.
“‘Common decency?’” Miranda said. “Common decency for these animals would dictate that he file charges. I am in shock. Just because you screw up once, common decency says you screw up again?”
Miranda called on Gallegos in August to review the case after Bugenig made headlines in connection with the at least 41 dogs previously belonging to her that were found dead or dying in Mad River.
Ownership of the horse at the center of the case, an older blind horse named Lucky, was transferred to Stacy Malcolm on June 15, 2005, the day Bugenig was forcibly evicted from the Mad River property by Trinity County law enforcement officials.
Stacy and her husband, John Malcolm, along with alleged accomplice Roger Zampatti, have been charged in Trinity County with 41 felony counts each of animal abuse.
Charges against Bugenig — 123 in all — were requested by the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office in 2004, when Bugenig lived near Bridgeville in Humboldt County, stemming from the standard of care provided to at least 61 dogs and the horse.
All of the charges but one were misdemeanor violations alleging that Bugenig failed to vaccinate and license the dogs. The final charge, a felony, was requested by deputies for Bugenig’s alleged failure to care for the horse.
Gallegos explained at the time that the felony charge was not filed because evidence gathered in the case did not demonstrate “an aspect of intent to the neglect,” which, he said, was necessary for the case to proceed.
“We can do nothing unless we have sufficient evidence of an offense,” he said. “That’s it in a nutshell.”
Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officer Brenda Godsey said in August that she could not speak to the evidentiary value of information provided to the DA’s Office, but could officially confirm that videotape and photographic evidence was included in the file.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund, a national animal welfare organization specializing in animal protection law enforcement, publicly challenged Gallegos’ legal reasoning in August, days after a story containing his remarks was published in The Eureka Reporter.
“An animal neglect charge does not require intentional conduct,” said ALDF Director of Education Eileen Stark. “It should be fairly easy to prove as it requires minimal criminal culpability.”
That argument has been reiterated by the ALDF, this time in the form of an article posted on its Web site and in an e-mail sent to its national membership.
Titled “Urge DA to Take Animal Neglect Seriously,” the ALDF article summarized the Bugenig case and stated, “Under California Penal Code 597(b), under which the felony charge was requested, the statute requires a low burden of proof. In fact, all that would be needed to convince a jury would be that the conditions of the horse did not fall under ‘the ordinary standard of due care.’ It does not require intent.”
In response to the article and e-mail alert, numerous letters were sent to Gallegos and to this newspaper. Gallegos responded to many of the letters, and some of the writers forwarded both their letters and his responses to The Eureka Reporter.
Stark said alerts such as this one are used “to inform, but also to generate communication.” The ALDF, she said, “follows cases all over the country and became interested in this case after learning that there apparently had been some missed opportunities in Humboldt County.”
While Stark did not know how many responses had been generated, she said, “We have received an above-average amount of feedback on this particular issue.”
One letter was received from Norma Campbell, a resident of Campbell, Calif., who wrote to Gallegos, “I am really appalled that this case has been dragging on since 2004 without felony charges being filed against this woman. It matters not that she is 65 years of age. I am 68, and if I did the horrific things she has done to animals I would be prosecuted. … You should be admonished for not pursuing this matter to conclusion.”
Gallegos replied, “An investigation into Mrs. Bugenig and her animals was forwarded to this office for review. We did not file a criminal case because we did not believe there was sufficient evidence to obtain a verdict against her with the exception of charges for not registering her dogs. We did not file criminal charges against her for not registering her dogs in the interest of justice, because neither she nor her dogs lived in Humboldt County at that time. Mrs. Bugenig’s age did not factor into our decision making.
“I am an animal owner and lover,” Gallegos continued. “I have been my entire life. I have little patience for people who abuse and/or neglect their animals. However, my personal feelings and my legal obligations often are not one and the same. I hope this answers your questions.”
Another letter writer, Jodi O’Shea-Walker from Norman, Okla., told The Eureka Reporter that she too had received a personal response from Gallegos, but that it did “not particularly” address her concerns.
“As a matter of fact,” she wrote, “I found his reply somewhat unclear. For instance, ‘We make decisions to file cases on evidence and the law, not on politics and certainly not out of convenience.’ It was my understanding that both photos and a videotape had been submitted as evidence. Further, I assure you that I mentioned nothing about ‘politics’ and haven’t a clue as to his reference of ‘not out of convenience.’ A bit testy and confusing, wouldn’t you say?”
Gallegos was specifically asked by this newspaper if the video and photo evidence had been examined when the charge was originally rejected for lack of evidence in 2004. He did not directly answer the question and in his response referred only to written reports submitted by the Sheriff’s Office.
In one of those reports, deputies described the condition of the horse as it deteriorated between March and June 2004.
“While we were videotaping the kennel area, we noticed the horse had lost weight, about 100 pounds. The horse was standing in the same area as it had been on other visits to the property, under a lean-to. Now that the ground has dried out, we were able to get a good look at the horse’s feet.
“The front feet are now curled up and have big chips in them,” the report continued. “The horse appears to be standing back on its heels and even almost appears to be starting to sit down. We attempted to get the horse to walk, but it did not appear to want to. We eventually videotaped it as we got it to turn and then turn back, walking only a few steps.
“While watching the horse walk, we observed the foot rotate extremely to the side.” The two officers present said they had “never seen a horse turn its foot to that position. Both of us are experienced horse people.”
Bugenig is currently in prison for brandishing a firearm at police officers during the eviction. Lucky the horse died at Bugenig’s former Mad River property. The cause of death is not known.
While Gallegos agreed in August that the ultimate fate of Bugenig’s animals was “tragic,” he said that was not a legal factor. “If we had the benefit of knowing what the future was going to do and could actually move that into evidence at the trial, we’d be much better at making the community safer. But we don’t.”
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Related Stories:
Two mass dog graves discovered near Mad River 8/16/2006
Trinity County Animal Control warned of dogs' plight since 2005 8/18/2006
"Dogs seemed fine," Animal Control Officer Edwards says 8/18/2006
Defense attorney says John and Stacy Malcolm not to blame for abuse of dogs 8/18/2006
Dogs' condition consistent with starvation, report states 8/20/2006
Death toll rises in Mad River dog deaths 8/22/2006
IN THE 'INTERESTS OF JUSTICE'? 8/23/2006
Evidence mounts in animal abuse case 8/24/2006
Report details 'horrific' conditions 8/26/2006
Community responds to dogs' abuse by donating to rescue 8/27/2006
51 CHARGES FILED IN DOG CASE 8/30/2006
National Animal group challenges Gallegos over abuse case 8/30/2006
National, international animal groups weigh in on abuse scandal 8/30/2006
ER Editorial - Specious arguments
8/30/2006
78 additional felonies charged in Mad River dog abuse case 9/1/2006
Malcolms 'walked through' arraignment 9/2/2006
When law enforcement fails, 'vigilantism' sometimes needed 9/4/2006
Third suspect in dog case arraigned 9/7/2006
Mad River dog abuse case suspect speaks out 9/9/2006
Hearing set for Mad River dog suspects 9/14/2006
Dog suspects head for trial 10/13/2006
Code addressing animal abuse requires low burden of proof 10/16/2006
Animal abuse linked to serial killings, needs to be addressed 10/16/2006
Gallegos says he will not file felony in Bugenig horse case 10/21/2006
If Lucky had been seized, perhaps he would have survived 10/23/2006
Original owner of Mad River dogs released from prison 11/1/2006
Malcolm attorney requests charges be dropped 12/13/2006
Defendant in Mad River dogs case accepts plea deal 8/20/2007
No comments:
Post a Comment