Shelter employees seek new trial

Caroline’s Kids defendants say their fair trial rights were violated

Four Caroline’s Kids Pet Rescue employees found guilty of neglecting cats are claiming their rights to a fair trial were violated.

On Nov. 28, Lake Humane Society seized 161 cats from the private Concord Township animal shelter — whose mission is to take in sick and dying cats — after receiving a complaint about the conditions of multiple animals.

Shelter owners Tom and Judie Brown, along with workers Ellen Distler and Virginia Wolford-Lee, were convicted last month in Painesville Municipal Court on 24 misdemeanor animal cruelty charges.

Each count carries a maximum penalty of up to 90 days in jail and/or a $750 fine.

The defendants are scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 7 by Visiting Judge David L. Fuhry.

However, the four are arguing that they be granted a new trial due to alleged misconduct of the jury, misconduct of the prosecutor and error of law at trial.

In his recent motion for a new trial, defense attorney Gregory Sasse is claiming:

• Fuhry improperly allowed

However, the four are arguing that they be granted a new trial due to alleged misconduct of the jury, misconduct of the prosecutor and error of law at trial.

Special Prosecutor J. Jeffrey Holland to present the case because the Browns had been his clients for 14 years immediately before they were charged — which Sasse called an “obvious conflict of interest.”

• The state did not provide medical records for more than 90 percent of the seized cats and destroyed evidence of the cats’ physical condition at the time of seizure.

“Had all the records been provided, it is quite likely that the state would not have been able to promote the fiction that the

cats were neglected by Caroline’s Kids and rescued by Lake Humane Society,” Sasse stated.

• The defendants were not given direct access to the animals after the seizure.

• The judge refused to allow the defendants to enter numerous videos into evidence because the defendants did not give the state a disc of the videos at the time of the final pretrial.

“In so ruling, the court elevated its own procedural housekeeping rule above the due process rights of the defendants,” Sasse said in the motion.

• The misconduct of at least two jurors infected the trial. Juror No. 6 denied during jury selection

that he knew any state or defense witnesses. In the middle of the trial, the defendants learned the juror is a close friend and relative of two defense witnesses.

“Defense counsel brought the matter to the attention of the court, but the court, rather than substituting the alternate juror, simply decided unilaterally that the juror’s status ‘doesn’t matter,’ “according to the motion.

In addition, Juror No. 7 did not reveal he had been present in court at all pretrials, and had physically positioned himself with the Lake Humane Society supporters who also attended.

Holland called Sasse’s allegations he failed to produce required

documents “simply false.”

Holland argued all of Sasse’s claims are meritless and the motion for a new trial should be denied.

The prosecutor stated in his brief in response to Sasse’s motion that the defendants never provided any evidence they were denied an opportunity to inspect the seized animals.

Holland also denied representing the defendants in the past, other than on a very limited basis for the nonprofit corporation in 2011.

“The organization was never a defendant in these proceedings, and the prosecutors never represented any of the charged individuals. There is no conflict of interest,” Holland stated.